ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Police (Administrative Burdens)

Stephen Metcalfe: What steps she has taken to reduce administrative burdens on the police.

Theresa May: We have cut red tape and freed the police from central Government control to enable them to focus on their clear goal, which is to cut crime. The work we have undertaken to reduce bureaucracy could see up to 4.5 million hours of police time saved across all forces every year—the equivalent of more than 2,100 officers back on the beat.

Stephen Metcalfe: May I put on record my thanks to police officers across Basildon and Thurrock for all their hard work in keeping our community safe? Does this Government’s record show that when it comes to vital services such as the police, with true reform it is possible to do more with less?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The reforms we have put in place are working, and crime is down overall by more than a fifth since the last election. I join him in saying that work to cut crime is being carried out by police officers and staff day in, day out, and I pay tribute to police officers in Basildon and Thurrock and across the country for that work.

Barry Sheerman: Did the Home Secretary listen this morning to the senior police officer from Essex who said that such are the cut backs to the police that he cannot cope in many areas of his responsibilities, including looking after the roads and keeping them safe despite a growing number of casualties?

Theresa May: Comments about changes to police budgets and the impact that they will have on crime have been made over the past four years—in fact, in 2010 the shadow Home Secretary said that cutting back police budgets would inexorably lead to a rise in crime. That was the implication she gave, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that crime has fallen by more than a fifth since the last general election.

Maria Miller: My local police in Basingstoke have kept crime down even with the pressure on resources because they can determine how officers are deployed. Does the Home Secretary have plans to introduce any new targets that might take our officers away from those locally determined priorities?

Theresa May: No. My right hon. Friend is right, and in Hampshire since 2010, recorded crime has fallen by 26%—one of the highest falls across the country. I have no plans to reintroduce the previous Government’s targets, which meant that central Government were trying to tell the police what to do at local level, rather than allowing them to determine what suited their local areas and respond to the needs of local people.

Andrew Gwynne: The Home Secretary talks about freeing up police time, but is she aware of the barmy decision by Greater Manchester police to close Reddish police station and ensure that neighbourhood policing teams for Reddish have to parade on at the central Stockport police station? Far from freeing up police time to go on the beat in north and south Reddish, having to travel from the centre of Stockport to their beats is tying up the police. Is that not barmy and what will she do about it?

Theresa May: Operational decisions are taken by the police, but I seem to recall that the police and crime commissioner in Greater Manchester is a former colleague of the hon. Gentleman on the Labour Benches. Perhaps he should talk to him about it.

Jack Dromey: Rather than reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and make sensible savings, the Home Secretary has chosen to inflict the biggest cuts to our police service of any country in Europe. Government figures out today show a sharp dip of 23% in the number of traffic police, and an increase in road deaths, including a 6% increase for children. Does she accept that she is letting the motorist down, and that under her tenure our roads are now less safe?

Theresa May: No. The hon. Gentleman comments on the cuts made to police budgets, but those cuts were necessary—as were spending cuts across the public sector—because of the situation left by the last Labour Government when we were left facing such a big deficit.

Drug Crime

Bob Blackman: What steps she has taken to improve the police response to drug crime.

Michael Penning: Thankfully, the long-term trend in drug use across the country, particularly in heroin and crack cocaine, continues to fall, but we must be vigilant, especially with synthetic drugs. I recently introduced a type of roadside drug testing, which is the first of its type in this country, and—I believe—the world.

Bob Blackman: I trust it will be remembered that there will be a record number of police in London by the end of March, thanks to the enlightened policies of the Mayor of London.
	I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. What further action will be taken to combat people who continue to drive under the influence of drugs, so that we can drive that scourge off the road?

Michael Penning: I was at Hendon training college only the week before last, and it was a pleasure to see the new recruits passing out. We will continue to bring technology forward. The police have been crying out for technology, at the roadside and in the station, to ensure we are as tough on drug-driving as we are on drink-driving. That is exactly what we will do.

Russell Brown: I am sure the Minister would accept there is relatively free movement of drugs up and down and across the country. Is he in discussions with the devolved Administrations on the tackling of drug crime and the free movement of drugs?

Michael Penning: The National Crime Agency looks at organised crime across the country. I am very pleased to say that the NCA is now in Northern Ireland, something we have been waiting for for some considerable time.

Julian Huppert: The chief constable of Durham constabulary, Mike Barton, has called for a change in our drugs policy, arguing that we would best tackle crime, and gang crime in particular, by changing our approach. Will the Minister listen to the increasing number of experts in law enforcement who want a new way to deal with this issue?

Michael Penning: An increase in number of one, probably. I do not agree at all with the chief constable of Durham. I have told him so and I will continue to tell him. Drugs are a scourge in our society and we must do everything we can to crack down on them.

Andrew Stephenson: On 28 August, I spoke to a resident at my advice surgery who had concerns about a property near their home being used as a cannabis farm. I relayed those concerns to the police and a raid took place on 10 September. Some 627 cannabis plants were found, conservatively estimated to be worth £250,000. Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the work of Lancashire police, in particular the ongoing Operation Regenerate, which is targeting organised criminal gangs and drug dealers in my area?

Michael Penning: I am aware of Operation Regenerate: it is a fantastic scheme, which forces around the country are trying to replicate. The seizure will mean fewer drugs on our streets, particularly the most abhorrent types of drugs that are affecting our constituents. At the same time, the money that was going to be in criminal hands is now in the Treasury.

Special Constables

Bob Russell: What steps she has taken to encourage people to become special constables.

Michael Penning: I am sure the whole House agrees that special constables make a vital contribution to the everyday cutting of crime in our communities. We continue to support special constables. I would like all Members to help to recruit more special constables in every one of their constituencies.

Bob Russell: I thank the Minister and endorse his comments. May I draw his attention to a special scheme, whereby the business community works with chief constables to release members of staff so they can become fully trained special constables in a short, concentrated period of time?

Michael Penning: I am aware of that scheme. Employer supported policing schemes, partnerships between employers and the police forces, are available around the country. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, I heard a Labour Member say that they are never available when one wants them. The specials do a fantastic job when other people are not available. We should commend every single one of them.

Damian Green: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Kent police specials, whose 248 members volunteered to work more than 100,000 hours of police duty in 2014 and rightly won the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service, the first special constabulary to do so? Is this not a model for how special constables can contribute a huge amount to making our streets safer?

Michael Penning: My right hon. Friend brings a lot of experience to this question and I commend Kent police. If I may, I would also like to commend Hertfordshire police, where I had the honour of presenting long service awards to specials and other constables. One had worked an equivalent of three years’ full-time service as a special, something I am sure we all commend.

Foreign Criminals (Deportation)

Adam Afriyie: What progress her Department has made on deporting foreign criminals from the UK.

James Brokenshire: We removed nearly 5,100 foreign criminals from the UK last year, and more than 22,000 since April 2010. More than 400 foreign national offenders have been removed under “deport now, appeal later” powers introduced in the Immigration Act 2014.

Adam Afriyie: If we are to have a country that is at ease with itself, deporting foreign criminals, while not easy, is absolutely necessary. The Home Secretary and her Department have done a great job and have shown great leadership in this area. That bodes well for the future of the country under any Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that if we are to have a country
	that feels at ease with itself even with minimal levels of immigration, we must continue to redouble our efforts to get rid of foreign criminals?

James Brokenshire: Foreign nationals who abuse our hospitality by committing crime in this country should be in no doubt about our determination to deport them. That is why we introduced the changes in the Immigration Act. Despite the 28% increase in the number of legal challenges, we are deporting foreign national offenders, and the measures we have taken are speeding up that process.

Ian Mearns: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) a couple of weeks ago, the Leader of the House was good enough to recognise the importance of the rights of children in deportation and removal cases. Does the Minister think it right that the Government are having more success in removing innocent children born in this country than in removing criminals from outside the country?

James Brokenshire: The Government have taken steps to ensure that deportation is appropriate, and some removal centres have family issues absolutely at their heart to ensure that where we remove those who should not be in this country, whether family units or otherwise, it is done appropriately. We have a proud record on reducing and dealing with the deportation of children.

Oliver Heald: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of Assistant Commissioner Rowley and the Operation Nexus team, who do so much to find hardened foreign criminals in our country? Does he agree that it is vital to identify these people and, where possible, get them out of the country?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for highlighting the work of Operation Nexus, which has succeeded in removing 3,000 foreign national criminals by identifying them early in the custody suites and by working alongside our immigration enforcement teams and the police. This approach enables us to deal with any issues at the earliest opportunity and see that these people are removed.

Seema Malhotra: Will the Minister confirm that in the last year of the Labour Government more than 5,500 foreign criminals were deported, but that every year since 2010 the figures have been lower? Why is this?

James Brokenshire: I can answer the hon. Lady’s question very directly—because there has been a 28% increase in the number of legal appeals. Despite all the appeals and legal challenges, however, we have removed 22,000 foreign national offenders. We are in no doubt about the Government’s resolve to deal with this issue. We introduced the Immigration Act and are speeding up the process. The Government are taking the right action.

Night-time Crime and Antisocial Behaviour

Sarah Newton: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of community-led responses to crime and antisocial behaviour related to the night-time economy.

Lynne Featherstone: Front-line professionals have new flexible powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, including problems in the night-time economy. We have overhauled the Licensing Act 2003 to give people a greater say in licensing decisions in their area and to give local areas the tools and powers they need to deal with problem premises. We have also enabled local communities to secure a financial contribution from late-opening premises towards policing the night-time economy.

Sarah Newton: Will the Minister join me in praising the street pastors, volunteer first aiders, first aiders and safe space volunteers in Truro and Falmouth who, on Saturday nights, do so much to keep people safe and take pressure off our much-valued police officers and paramedics?

Lynne Featherstone: I am delighted to praise the work of the safe space initiative in Falmouth and others like it, which provide an extremely valuable service. These schemes are run by local volunteers and officers who help with first aid. There are also the street pastors, which we also have in Haringey. I am sure that Members across the House would praise their work. The Government have also introduced the late-night levy power for local communities to use if they choose to do so. It enables local authorities to collect a financial contribution from businesses that profit from selling alcohol, and the funds raised can be used for safe spaces.

Diana Johnson: How many?

Lynne Featherstone: Seven.

Gisela Stuart: In parts of my constituency, the night-time economy includes kerb-crawling and street prostitution. Local residents are trying to work with the police to control the situation, but it is becoming increasingly difficult, with the cuts to community support officers and front-line police officers and the local authority cuts, to work with local communities. What is the Minister doing to support them?

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Lady will have heard already that crime is falling across the country and has reduced by one fifth since the coalition entered government. We have taken action. I have written to local authorities to remind them of their powers, and police and crime commissioners are there to use their commissioning powers in respect of crimes that need addressing in their local areas.

Modern Slavery

Margot James: What assessment she has made of the level of modern slavery in the UK.

Karen Bradley: This Government are determined to stamp out the abhorrent crime of modern slavery. Research carried out by the Home Office estimates that in 2013, the number of potential victims in the UK was between 10,000 and 13,000. This was included in the Government’s modern slavery strategy published in November, which sets out the wide range of actions being taken across Government to tackle modern slavery.

Margot James: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the West Midlands police on Operation Sentinel, which is leading a campaign this month to train 1,100 front-line officers to identify victims of modern slavery, safeguard them and raise public awareness of the signs of slavery and the need for people to report any suspicions they may have?

Karen Bradley: I absolutely will join my hon. Friend in congratulating the West Midlands police. It is exactly this type of initiative that will raise awareness and help us to tackle this dreadful crime. It is only by identifying the victims, and by people knowing how to identify the victims, that we will find them and give them the support they need.

Stephen McCabe: Is the Minister at all concerned at the failure to ensure that the monitoring of private fostering arrangements for children from abroad actually takes place, which means that we could be missing completely a potential level of modern slavery?

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but through the work in the Modern Slavery Bill and through the strategy, we are absolutely determined that we will find all victims of slavery; and for children we are trialling child trafficking advocates so that we can ensure that children get exactly the support they need to give them the best opportunity in life.

Terrorism

Simon Burns: What further steps she is taking to protect the UK from terrorism in response to recent attacks in Paris.

Theresa May: The first responsibility of government is to protect its citizens. We are committed to providing a strong, effective and appropriate security response to any terrorist threats to the UK. Since the shocking events in Paris, we have reviewed our security arrangements, stepped up protective security measures, including increasing patrols for vulnerable communities and sites to ensure effective security and safety. The police are confident that they remain flexible and able to respond to any increases in threat to protect all communities.

Simon Burns: Does the Home Secretary share my view that the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill is a crucial element in the Government’s strategy to reduce the threat of attacks within the United Kingdom, as well as tackling the terrible problem of people leaving this country to take part in terrorist acts abroad?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill enhances our ability to deal with people across a range of aspects of the terrorist threat, enabling us temporarily to remove passports from people who are leaving the United Kingdom where it is thought they will be going to join terrorist groups to fight and potentially to train, while also taking action to ensure that those coming back who are a matter of concern will be able to come back only on our terms.

Keith Vaz: In her evidence in Parliament last week, Sally Evans, the mother of a convert, Thomas Evans, who is now fighting for al-Shabaab in Somalia, said she had received no support from the authorities in dealing with his fateful decision. Both she and her other son, Michael, have been traumatised by what has happened. Does the Home Secretary agree that we need to give more support to families such as the Evanses—but not just because it is the right thing to do, as it could also provide us with valuable information to prevent other young men from being radicalised in the way that Thomas Evans has been radicalised?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that many families up and down the country can find that a family member has gone to fight, whether it be in Syria or Iraq, possibly with ISIL or the al-Nusra front, or to al-Shabaab in the case he outlined. I pay tribute to the families that have spoken out about their experience and are using it to try to help ensure that more young people do not go to fight with terrorist groups as their family members have. It is also important to give support to families that go through this trauma, as it can often tear families apart.

Rehman Chishti: On tackling extremism and terrorism, will the Government work according to the 2013 report on tackling extremism, which emphasised the need for freedom of expression and respect for faiths? If that is the case, does the Home Secretary agree that we need to be careful not to mock people’s faith, as this can lead to intolerance and play into the hands of extremists and terrorists?

Theresa May: I agree. Freedom of expression and speech is a fundamental British value, but if taken advantage of by extremists, it can cause fear and set communities against each other. It is absolutely right that we expect people to respect each other’s faiths. There are people of many faiths in this country, and we want to see respect for those different faiths. That is crucial. I think that we should speak out for our values against those who would sow the seeds of hatred, intolerance and prejudice.

Pete Wishart: Surely the best response to the events in Paris is a considered, proportionate response. We must do nothing that would further compromise our civil liberties or the freedoms that we enjoy in this democracy. Will the Home Secretary listen to the many voices that have expressed concern about her counter-terrorism Bill, and ensure that that we do nothing—nothing at all—to question further the civil liberties that we enjoy in this country?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we wish to protect our civil liberties—the very freedoms that make our society what it is—and that we should respond proportionately to attacks when they happen, which is exactly what we do. I should point out to him, however, that the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill was going through the House before the Paris attacks. It was introduced in response to the rising number of people who have been going to fight in Syria in particular, who may be training out there or fighting and then coming back, wishing to do us harm. I believe that the Bill contains important powers, but that those powers constitute a proportionate response to the threat that we face.

Kate Green: Since the appalling attacks in Paris, my Muslim constituents have been talking to me about the climate of suspicion and hostility in which some of them feel they are living. We also know that Jewish communities are feeling more victimised and fearful of anti-Semitic attacks. What can the Government do to promote and strengthen relationships among our many very valued communities? Of course the deradicalisation and Prevent programmes are important, but there is a very important positive programme to be promoted as well.

Theresa May: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is important to promote that interfaith working, and the relationships between different communities. The Department for Communities and Local Government has undertaken a number of activities with the aim of doing exactly that: encouraging respect for different faiths and between communities, and a greater understanding between communities. That is very important work.

Diana Johnson: The Home Secretary cut spending on community Prevent projects from £17.4 million to £1 million. She cut the number of areas delivering Prevent from 92 to 21, and in one year just four local authorities received funding for Prevent projects. At the same time, the Department for Communities and Local Government has funded just eight local integration projects, none of which is aimed at Islamic fundamentalism. Will the Home Secretary explain why local Prevent and integration projects have been so neglected under this Government?

Theresa May: I must tell the hon. Lady that her analysis is wrong. This Government did make a difference to the Prevent programme when they came to office. We observed that, all too often, people were seeing the Labour Government’s integration work under Prevent through the prism of the Government’s spying on them, and of counter-terrorism, so we changed the way in which Prevent operated. The Home Office has not cut its funding for Prevent, and I am pleased to say that Prevent programmes have reached more than 50,000 people in this country.

Identity Crime

David Amess: What steps her Department is taking to tackle identity crime.

Karen Bradley: We have developed a programme of activity to tackle the important issue of the manufacture and use of false identities, working closely with the national policing lead on identity crime.

David Amess: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Bill, which is being taken through its final stages in the House of Lords by Baroness Berridge, is vital to the tackling of the dire situation that is being caused by identity fraud?

Karen Bradley: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his Bill, which the Government fully support. I know that, once it has completed its passage through the other place, it will make a significant difference to the tackling of identity crime.

Rural Crime

Anne McIntosh: What recent representations she has received on the level of rural crime; and if she will make a statement.

Lynne Featherstone: I have received a number of representations about crime in rural areas from hon. Members, members of the public and interested organisations. We do not underestimate the impact that crime can have on those who live in rural areas. That is why we support the National Rural Crime Network, and awarded it £40,000 last year from the police innovation fund to assist its work.

Anne McIntosh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that fly grazing is a heinous rural crime and is on the increase, and that it is frequently associated with other crimes such as stolen vehicles or driving without insurance? Will the Government introduce exactly the same law as applies in southern Ireland, to prevent these fly grazers from remaining for more than two days on any private land?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend, and I agree that it is a heinous crime—and it is animal cruelty, in fact. Police and crime commissioners are making crime in rural areas a priority, and over 60% of PCCs in England and Wales have joined the National Rural Crime Network. That includes an online resource that allows police and partners and others to share information, training and case studies. Although we have no plans to introduce the criminal offence that my hon. Friend suggests, together with this kind of communication, organisations such as Horsewatch and Farm Watch can bring such crime down.

Cyber and Online Crime

Julie Hilling: What assessment she has made of changes in the level of cyber and online crime in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [Official Report, 23 February 2015, Vol. 593, c. 1-2MC.]

Karen Bradley: We take cybercrime very seriously, and the Government have committed £860 million over five years to tackling it. We are also working to increase the reporting of online offences to
	Action Fraud, and official figures show that the recorded number of those crimes has nearly trebled since Action Fraud was set up.

Julie Hilling: Two of my constituents lost £250,000 due to identity theft and were simply referred to Action Fraud where they were given no information. What is the Minister doing to improve the performance of Action Fraud and to boost the resources of each local police force?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Lady and I have had several conversations about Action Fraud and I welcome her comments on real-life examples and what is going on. I am working with Action Fraud on an improvement plan. As she knows, the City of London police now have responsibility for both Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, and since moving to the City of London police, Action Fraud has disseminated over 40,000 crime packages to local police forces. However, we can and must do more to ensure that the victim knows about what happens and feels they have been taken seriously.

Tony Baldry: Cybercrime knows no national boundaries. Is this not a good example where working closely with others in Europe through the European Cybercrime Centre and Interpol will help us better develop systems to tackle cybercrime and keep us all safe?

Karen Bradley: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Europol is doing very important work to tackle cybercrime—that high-level malware-type crime that can have a major impact on businesses and infrastructure. Through the Serious Crime Bill we are introducing additional offences to tackle the serious misuse of the internet to impact on national infrastructure.

Steve Reed: Can the Minister confirm that there are now delays of more than 12 months in processing and investigating some cases of online child abuse that have been reported to the National Crime Agency?

Karen Bradley: I do not recognise that statistic. The NCA is working very hard, and we have seen from the success of Operation Notarise just what it can achieve. I work closely with it, and I know it takes this issue extremely seriously and it will make sure all crimes are investigated appropriately.

Nick de Bois: For many of my constituents who have experienced crime in respect of their commercial enterprises, Action Fraud’s response has been little more than a mapping exercise. Will the Minister urge the Metropolitan police and all police forces to put this sort of commercial crime right up on the agenda?

Karen Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right that we need all local police forces, including the Metropolitan police, to take that seriously. I would be keen to hear about the examples from his constituents in order to assist my work on the improvement plan we have put in place to make sure Action Fraud delivers what victims of crime need.

Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery

Fiona Mactaggart: What recent discussions she has had with police and crime commissioners on the priority they give to prosecuting and preventing human trafficking and modern slavery; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa May: My ministerial team and I engage regularly with PCCs on a range of issues. Most recently PCCs attended the international crime and policing conference which I hosted in January, and at that event the new designate independent anti-slavery commissioner, Kevin Highland, gave a keynote address about the importance of tackling modern slavery. I am committed to working with PCCs to ensure that the police remain focused on this terrible crime.

Fiona Mactaggart: How many PCCs have made tackling modern slavery and human trafficking a strategic priority for their force?

Theresa May: PCCs have made a range of issues a strategic priority for their forces, as the hon. Lady will know. We are clear that the impetus for dealing with modern slavery is coming from the Government and that it is a priority for the National Crime Agency. Police and crime commissioners will of course set what they believe to be the most appropriate strategic priorities for their areas. I am interested that the hon. Lady wants PCCs to be interested in this matter, because her party wants to abolish them, and if that were to happen, they could take no interest in it whatever.

Terrorism

Julian Smith: What progress she has made on ensuring that the Security Service is adequately equipped to tackle terrorism.

James Brokenshire: It is vital that our security and intelligence services should have the powers and resources that they need to keep us safe. We have taken steps to maintain capabilities through the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, and we are increasing powers through the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. An additional £130 million will be available over the next two years to strengthen counter-terrorism capabilities.

Julian Smith: A terror suspect is arrested every day, and our intelligence services are crystal clear that they need greater oversight of internet communications. When will the Government bring the Communications Data Bill back to the House?

James Brokenshire: I pay tribute to the work that our police and security agencies do to keep us safe, and it is right that my hon. Friend should highlight that work in his question. Capability gaps identified during discussions on the draft Communications Data Bill have not been met, and we are clear that action needs to be taken. This issue needs to be addressed early in the next Parliament.

Radicalisation and Extremism

David Mowat: What assessment she has made of the role of voluntary organisations in tackling radicalisation and extremism.

James Brokenshire: Voluntary organisations and communities can play an important role in confronting and challenging extremism. Local Prevent projects have reached more than 55,000 people since early 2012, and the Government have supported community-based campaigns such as Families Matter and Making a Stand.

David Mowat: The Minister will be aware of the successful work being done by the Warrington-based Foundation for Peace with young people who are vulnerable to extremism, many of whom have now moved on to become young leaders in their communities. That work is focused mainly on parts of northern England. Would he support a wider roll-out, and will he meet me and members of the foundation to discuss how that could be achieved?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the work of the Foundation for Peace, which I visited a couple of years ago. I am aware of its continuing work, and I would be happy to meet him and representatives of the foundation to discuss the steps that they are taking. We are clearly looking for good practice that can be shared around the country to confront and combat extremism and radicalisation.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the many voluntary organisations that stand up against racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Does he agree that we all have a duty to stand up against all such forms of racism and extremism, as well as against those far right extremists who are promoting racism within our society at the present time?

James Brokenshire: I absolutely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the responsibility that we all have to stand up against extremism and racism at a time when we are seeing anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. He is absolutely right to underline that call. Our work on Channel, which is about counter-radicalisation, focuses on all forms that might lead to terrorism, and some of the references that come through our Channel referral programme are indeed from the far right. That is why we take an all-embracing approach to our work.

Visa Applications

Eric Ollerenshaw: What improvements she has made to the visa system for applicants from China and other key markets.

James Brokenshire: UK Visas and Immigration has enhanced the visa service provided to visitors to the UK from China by improving our visa application centres, introducing online applications for independent travellers and introducing a comprehensive range of premium services,
	including a new, 24-hour service. The 24-hour service is also available in India, and it will be launched in other key markets later this year.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Lancaster university is one of the top 10 universities in the country and it educates more than 1,000 Chinese students a year. Will the new changes help those students?

James Brokenshire: I welcome the approach that Lancaster university and other universities are taking. Clearly, we welcome legitimate students who are studying at our universities, and I am pleased that there has been a 4% increase in student visa applications from Chinese students. Our approach is very much about controlling immigration while attracting the brightest and best, including students to study at our universities.

John Leech: One of the so-called improvements to our immigration system is the decision to require asylum seekers, including those from China, to make fresh submissions in person at Liverpool. Would the Minister care to dispute the comments of Dave Smith of the Boaz Trust, who rightly says that it appears to be pure discrimination and a cynical attempt to deter people from putting in fresh submissions?

James Brokenshire: I rebut that entirely. The proposal is about bringing into line arrangements that were already in place in relation to pre-2007 asylum applications. We have a specialist centre—a specialist unit—in Liverpool and it is ensuring that those further submissions are considered appropriately and effectively.

Crime Prevention (Urban Design)

Edward Leigh: What research her Department has undertaken on how architecture and urban design may assist crime prevention.

Lynne Featherstone: We have not conducted any recent research in this area, but a strong body of evidence shows how the design and build of our homes, schools and public places can prevent crime and antisocial behaviour.

Edward Leigh: We do not need research to tell us that—it is common sense. Without sounding too much like that most estimable man the Prince of Wales, may I urge the Home Office to do more to encourage new urbanist principles in urban design that are developing on the continent: walkability; high density, as in European cities and as opposed to urban sprawl; and modernist projects? All these ideas of involving the community in their community can only help to defeat crime.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend, who is almost indistinguishable from the Prince of Wales. We have no current plans to conduct research on the impact of modern architecture and design on crime and antisocial behaviour, but we keep an open mind on all ideas. A Home Office-funded project published in 2010 looked at the crime experience of six contemporary housing schemes and its findings led to the development of valuable design principles on creating safe places to live
	for use by the police, architects and others. Anyone using their common sense when commissioning and designing a building would, obviously, wish to design out crime.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have long held the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) in the highest esteem, but he will forgive me for saying that I had not previously noticed any particular resemblance.

Sex Abuse Cases

Mark Pawsey: What steps her Department has taken to ensure that lessons are learnt from recent child sex abuse cases in Rotherham and elsewhere.

Theresa May: I have been absolutely clear that what happened in Rotherham was a complete dereliction of duty. We have taken immediate action to protect children in Rotherham, and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has announced his intention to exercise his powers to intervene. I have been chairing a series of meetings with Secretary of State colleagues to consider the failures identified in Rotherham and the action we will take to address those issues at a national level. I will publish a report on the outcome of those meetings shortly.

Mark Pawsey: In her important and shocking report on what was going on in Rotherham, Professor Alexis Jay spoke about the need to establish teams involving children’s services and education and local authorities, as well as the police. Will the Home Secretary update us on some of the proposals that will be coming forward from the cross-government meetings of Ministers?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I am sure he will understand when I say that I cannot go into too much detail at this stage, but the Secretaries of State meetings have brought the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Secretary of State for Education, the Justice Secretary, the Health Secretary, the Attorney-General and others together to look at what is a necessary cross-government approach on these issues. We have been focusing on the issues that Professor Jay highlighted in her report: the failure of local leadership; the culture of inaction and denial in the police and the local council; the failure of local agencies to work together to protect children; and the lack of support for victims. It is exactly in those areas that we will be looking at proposals and bringing those forward shortly.

Stuart Andrew: “Look North” reported this morning that charities such as Barnardo’s are reporting unprecedented demand following these high-profile scandals, which is putting a real strain on them financially. Is there any help the Government can give such charities in tackling this very important issue?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course, this has not just arisen in relation to what has happened in Rotherham; we have also seen, as a result of the child sexual abuse inquiry that I have announced, larger numbers of people coming forward
	to a number of organisations dealing with child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation. The Government announced before Christmas that £7 million was being made available for a number of types of organisation dealing with these issues, and that process is now open for bids to be received.

Terrorism

Andrew Turner: What assessment she has made of the likelihood of terrorist attacks in rural areas of the UK.

James Brokenshire: It is clear that the UK faces a serious and enduring threat from terrorism. I cannot comment on intelligence matters or specific threat assessments, but I can confirm that specialist joint police, ambulance and fire teams are in place with the capability to respond to terrorist attacks in the country.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many potential targets in rural areas, including reservoirs, sewage plants, communication masts and electrical substations? Rural populations would face enormous difficulties if such sites were attacked. Will he assure me that such infrastructure is included in anti-terrorism planning?

James Brokenshire: Yes. We have a longstanding programme in place to ensure that the country’s most critical infrastructure is protected against terrorist threats. I cannot comment on the details, but our priority is to ensure the continuity of essential services such as water, energy and telecommunications, which were referenced by my hon. Friend.

Topical Questions

Grahame Morris: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: The Government take the welfare of vulnerable people in the state’s care extremely seriously. Last week, I was glad to see the Home Affairs Committee support our steps to reduce the use of police cells as a place of safety for people with mental health problems. Our reforms helped cut the use of police cells by 22% last year, and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary is currently conducting an inspection of the welfare of vulnerable people in custody, which will report shortly.
	But the state’s care extends beyond police custody, which is why I have today announced an independent review of the welfare of those in immigration detention to identify whether improvements can be made to safeguard the health and well-being of detainees held in immigration removal centres and short-term holding facilities and those being escorted in the UK. Detention is a vital tool, but the well-being of those in our care is always a high priority and we are committed to treating all detainees with dignity and respect.
	Finally, concerns have been raised about the exploitation of domestic workers from overseas. I therefore announce an independent review of the visa arrangements for
	overseas domestic workers, which will be carried out by the barrister, James Ewins, who is an expert in modern slavery issues.

Grahame Morris: I thank the Home Secretary for her reply. May I draw her attention to the reply that was given a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) in relation to internet-based crime and to the increase in telephone-based crime? In particular, I am talking about those who target elderly and vulnerable people and offer to stop nuisance calls, when in fact they are involved in a scam in which they extort large sums of money in fees and charges. Are the Home Office or the police service running any initiatives to counter that particular problem?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concerns that many people have about that type of crime. I am pleased to say that we have taken action on cybercrime, and we have set up the national cyber crime unit in the National Crime Agency. Both actions were taken by this Government. The unit has already had some success in looking at those crimes, particularly the ones that involve defrauding elderly people who are taking calls and responding to them. We have seen some success, but of course this is an area in which we clearly have more to do.

Andrew Turner: May I take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s Serious Crime Bill? Among other measures, it will improve the safety of my constituents on the Isle of Wight and in other coastal communities by giving police and others the powers they need to really go after the Mr Bigs and organised crime gangs, including those that import illegal drugs?

Karen Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Serious Crime Bill, which contains a number of important measures to tackle those Messrs Bigs about whom he talks, including the ability to seize their assets. If we can deprive criminals of their assets, they are much less likely to be able to carry on with their criminal lives.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary should have called an independent inquiry into allegations of abuse by Serco staff at Yarl’s Wood 18 months ago, before, and not after, renewing Serco’s contract. Yesterday, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, national lead on counter-terrorism, said that the police face serious increases in pressure as a result of Syria and that
	“We certainly need more money”.
	Peter Clarke, former national lead on counter-terror, has warned that fighting terrorism depends on a “golden thread” through national, regional and neighbourhood police, yet the scale of cuts means that the thread is being broken. The Association of Chief Police Officers has warned that the Home Secretary’s plans mean that 34,000 police jobs and more than 16,000 further police officers will go over the next five years. Does she agree that the police need more resources to tackle terrorism, and if so, why does she want to cut 16,000 more police officers?

Theresa May: I have to say to the right hon. Lady that throughout our time in government we have protected CT police funding. She might have missed it, but late last year the Prime Minister announced that £130 million of extra money was being made available to the agencies and police to deal with terrorism.

Yvette Cooper: But Peter Clarke is warning about the impact on neighbourhood policing. The Home Secretary will know that online crime is going through the roof and 999 delays have gone up. The terrorist threat has increased, neighbourhood policing is being decimated, and there are fewer traffic police enforcing the rules and more deaths on the roads. On child abuse, in particular, there has been a 33% increase in the number of cases reported to the police, an 11% reduction in the number of cases passed for prosecution and year-long delays in dealing with online cases because the police and NCA do not have the resources and capacity to do the job. Let me ask her again: is this the right time to cut 16,000 police officers? Yes or no?

Theresa May: First, on neighbourhood policing, it is absolutely clear from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that forces can successfully manage to balance their books while protecting the front line and delivering reductions in crime. I remind the right hon. Lady once again that there has been a fall in crime of more than a fifth under this Government. The Labour party needs to get its story straight. On the one hand, the right hon. Lady stands up in this House and claims that more resources should be going into the police while, on the other, the shadow Chancellor, whom I think she might know, makes it very clear that under a Labour Government there would continue to be cuts.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Home Secretary remind the shadow Home Secretary that without a strong economy we cannot have strong policing?

Theresa May: I am very pleased to accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. He is absolutely right and, of course, it is this Government’s long-term economic plan that is delivering the strong economy that delivers the public services.

Andrew Gwynne: I suspected earlier that the Home Secretary would seek to blame somebody else for her cuts, but she is responsible for a reduction in Greater Manchester police’s budget of £134 million with a further £157 million to come out in the next three years. Will she acknowledge that it does not free up police time for officers to parade in one part of the division only to have to travel to another part of the division for their beat? Or is it that her mantra of freeing up police time is precisely what I suspect it is—bluster?

Michael Penning: If anybody is blustering, I just heard it. At the end of the day, there is a Labour police and crime commissioner and a chief constable who decide where operational police are. There are more police on operations in Manchester today—

Andrew Gwynne: Your cuts.

Michael Penning: The hon. Gentleman can say what he likes from a sedentary position, but it is a Labour PCC that is doing it.

Robert Halfon: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in Harlow we have had more than 100 illegal Traveller encampments over the past year, causing huge amounts of misery for local residents. The chief constable of Essex says that he does not have enough powers to deal with that and cites the human rights of the Travellers. Will my right hon. Friend meet the chief constable and set out what powers there are for him to deal with this problem?

Michael Penning: This is a very important issue across our constituencies. I praise my hon. Friend for the work he has done to highlight the massive issues and massive cost of illegal sites. I will meet the chief constable of Essex again, but I, with the local government Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), have written to him to highlight the powers that the police have and that they should be using them.

Pat Glass: The Home Secretary will recall that working towards departure dates was a key strategy in dealing with last year’s passport crisis. My constituent, Mr Reed, applied for his passport this year well within the time scale. When it did not arrive, he contacted my office. We contacted the Passport Office with a week to go and were told that the Passport Office is no longer working to departure dates but has reverted to processing passports on the basis of when they are received, rather than when they are needed. As a result, my constituent lost his holiday. Another summer is coming. Will the Passport Office be using departure dates in an effort to avoid the crisis that we saw last year?

James Brokenshire: I am happy to look into the individual case that the hon. Lady highlights. The Passport Office is meeting all its current service standards in relation to renewals, so if a specific problem occurred in that case, we will certainly look into it.

Sarah Newton: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s announcement today of a review of visa arrangements for people coming from overseas to work in people’s homes. Can she provide the House with a few more details about the review, including timings?

Karen Bradley: I can give my hon. Friend some further information. The terms of reference for the review have been placed in the Library, so they are available to see. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced, James Ewins, whom those who served on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee will recognise as an adviser to that Committee, is carrying out the review. It is important to say that the measures to protect victims of modern slavery apply to all victims of modern slavery, irrespective of their immigration status. There are some people who give the impression that overseas domestic workers do not qualify for support under the modern slavery strategy. That is not the case.

Jeremy Corbyn: In 2010 the House passed the Equality Act, which required the Department to undertake research into discrimination by caste and descent in the UK. Such discrimination has been proved by the research, but no regulation has yet been introduced and, as I understand it, the Department is consulting for a further two years or more in order to avoid placing regulations before the House. Will the Home Secretary give an undertaking that those regulations will be brought forward to outlaw this form of discrimination in this country?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of discrimination in relation to caste, which is a matter of some concern, I know, to a number of people. The issue is now being considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, and further work is indeed being done. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns on this matter are passed on to my right hon. Friend.

Richard Fuller: There have been significant and difficult changes to the pensions for police officers and they will obviously want to have informed discussions with their families. Is the correct and sufficient advice from people with a knowledge of pensions available to police officers, or does my right hon. Friend think further action could be taken?

Michael Penning: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter not only here in the House, but with me privately last week. I am working to ensure that police officers get the right sort of advice not only from the Police Federation, but from our own officials. I will make sure they get that because they need such information when making difficult decisions about the future.

Julie Hilling: We know that as internet trading grows, there is a massive growth in online crime and fraud, including by organised criminals. How can the Government say that crime is falling when these crimes are not recorded in the crime survey? When will Ministers start to include them?

Karen Bradley: As the hon. Lady knows, fraud has historically been an under-reported crime. Action Fraud is trying to get reporting levels up. I am working closely with Action Fraud, City of London police and others to improve investigation rates and make sure that the victims understand what is happening.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her strong stand against anti-Semitism, but can she tell the House what further action she can take to make sure that the perpetrators are brought to justice for anti-Semitic attacks and any other forms of hate crime?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I am sure that everybody across the House is very clear that we deplore acts of anti-Semitism. I was pleased a few weeks ago to bring together the Campaign Against Antisemitism, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief executive of the College of Policing to discuss how they can issue better guidance to ensure that police officers deal with hate crimes and that we see prosecutions being taken forward so that those who are guilty of this terrible crime are properly dealt with.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Minister will be aware that one in 20 cardholders in Britain have been victims of plastic fraud and that levels of fraud reported by Action Fraud have gone up by 10% over the past year. She says that she is trying hard to do something. When will she succeed?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Lady knows that we need to increase the reporting of fraud. The dedicated cheque and plastic crime unit, which is run by the City of London police and the Metropolitan police and works with Financial Fraud Action UK, is doing an enormous amount of work to improve that. Also, given that the UK has significantly higher levels of plastic payment than other parts of the world, we should be very proud of the great advances we have seen, including with chip and pin and contactless payment, which are incredibly safe here in Britain.

Julian Huppert: Last week the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that the regime governing UK agencies getting information from the US National Security Agency about the private communications of people in the UK was illegal and had been until last December. Will the Home Secretary ensure that any and all data that were held illegally by the security agencies, or any other agencies for which she has responsibility, are now deleted?

Theresa May: Last week’s judgment reaffirmed the IPT’s earlier ruling, which found that the current regime governing the intelligence agencies’ external interception and intelligence-sharing regimes are lawful and compliant with the European convention on human rights. Those activities have always been subject to strict safeguards, and the judgment was about the amount of detail about those safeguards that needed to be in the public domain. The IPT has made it clear that no further action is required.

Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) raised a point of order after business questions last week relating to the interception of communications. The passage in the report of the interception of communications commissioner to which he referred concerns the operation of the statutory regime for the interception of communications and suggested possible additional safeguards for journalistic sources under that regime. That does not on the face of it raise any issue for the House. The House will be aware that the Wilson doctrine, to the effect that Members’ communications will not be subjected to surveillance or interception under that regime, has been reaffirmed by successive Governments. A prospective adjustment of the statutory regime for journalists cannot therefore have any direct implications for the operation of the Wilson doctrine. I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning the matter and pledged to return to him and to the House with a response, which is what I have done. We will leave it there for now, unless he feels an urgent desire—[Interruption.] He does. Very well.

David Davis: The issue under discussion is the question of the collection of metadata—in other words, data on those from whom we have received calls. It matters particularly with regard to whistleblowers and the like. When my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) asked about that, he was told by the Cabinet Office in terms that metadata were not protected under the Wilson doctrine, so our constituents and whistleblowers are still at risk.

Mr Speaker: I note the additional point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. However, it does not seem to me obviously a matter for the Chair to seek to interpret the Wilson doctrine, beyond reporting to the House, as I have just done, that the prospective adjustment in respect of journalists does not appear to me to constitute any prospective change to the doctrine. I have a sense that he wishes to continue the debate—I say that in good humour and with respect—but I have nothing to add this afternoon. If he wishes to pursue the matter further, he might profitably do so with Ministers, who look all agog and in eager anticipation of the prospect of that dialogue. I doubt that there is anything to which they look forward more.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Shabana Mahmood: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on tax avoidance and evasion by HSBC.

David Gauke: I welcome the opportunity to respond to this question and to the information released today in respect of an HSBC subsidiary’s involvement in facilitating tax evasion during the course of the previous Parliament.
	Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a long-standing approach to tax evasion that is based on collecting the tax and interest due, changing taxpayers’ behaviour to discourage them from evading in future, and enforcing the most appropriate and effective penalties. Overwhelmingly, this means providing disclosure facilities to encourage tax evaders to sort out their affairs, backed by civil penalties to fine them for the offence. This has been the consistent approach under Governments of all parties. This Government have supported HMRC’s approach by increasing investment in its enforcement capacity and by strengthening its powers, including increasing the maximum fines for hiding money in tax havens to 200% of the tax evaded.
	This approach has been very successful in tackling tax evasion, whether by plumbers, barristers and medics in the UK or by the wealthy hiding money in offshore accounts. HMRC has collected more than £1.6 billion from 57,000 disclosures as a result of a wide range of UK and international initiatives. Internationally, since 2010, HMRC has brought in about £2 billion in previously unpaid tax as a result of the UK’s agreement with Switzerland on a withholding tax on Swiss bank accounts, and the international Liechtenstein disclosure facility. In a small number of cases, HMRC will institute criminal investigations into serial tax evaders and those who deliberately conceal information from it, but in most cases disclosure and civil fines are the most appropriate and effective intervention. That is how HMRC has approached the receipt of data from leaks and whistleblowers, including the Swiss HSBC data that were shared with the department in May 2010.
	Using the civil disclosure approach, HMRC has systematically worked through all the HSBC data that it has received and has brought in more than £135 million in tax, interest and penalties from tax evaders who hid their assets in Swiss HSBC accounts. HMRC received data from about 6,800 entities, and that, after removing duplication, resulted in information on 3,600 businesses and individuals. Of those cases, over 1,000 were challenged and the cases were settled. HMRC believes that the remainder are compliant but continues to monitor their activities.
	HMRC is examining whether it has all the same data that the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists has, and that we have seen reported today, and it will be asking the ICIJ for any data that we have not already been given. HMRC received the HSBC data under very strict conditions that limited the department’s use of it to pursuing offshore tax evasion and prevented HMRC from sharing the data with other law enforcement authorities. Under these restrictions, HMRC has not
	been able to seek prosecution for other potential offences such as money laundering. However, the French authorities have today confirmed that they will provide all assistance necessary to allow HMRC to exploit the data to their fullest.
	HMRC’s powers to crack down on international evasion are being further strengthened by the new international common reporting standards, which more than 90 countries have agreed to as an extra tool for closing down the options for tax cheats to pursue this increasingly high-risk practice. This has been as a consequence, in part, of the leadership shown by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the G8. This is further evidence of progress made by this Government—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I cannot believe that I cannot hear the Minister. Please let him finish.

David Gauke: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	This is further evidence of progress made by this Government in tackling tax evasion and, indeed, tax avoidance—progress that was sadly lacking under the previous Government.

Shabana Mahmood: The Financial Secretary’s remarks simply do not go far enough. We need much more detail from him as to what the Government have been up to since they were made aware of this information and why they have apparently failed to act over such serious allegations.
	First, when the French authorities passed this information to HMRC, who saw it and what was done with it? Were Ministers informed and what communications did HMRC have with the Treasury and No. 10? If there was no communication, why not, given the seriousness of the issue?
	Secondly, what information did the Government seek from Lord Green about the allegations of malpractice at HSBC and his involvement in them prior to his appointment as a trade Minister? The Financial Secretary said this morning that the information was in the public domain before 2010. What information was sought and received? Any failure by this Government to question Stephen Green before his appointment would be an inexplicable and inexcusable abdication of responsibility, and the Government must address that point.
	Does the Financial Secretary agree that the minimum to be expected now must be an immediate statement by Lord Green, with a full explanation of his role in these allegations while at HSBC; his knowledge of them while he was a Government Minister; and all communication he has had on these issues with Government Ministers?
	Thirdly, at any point during Lord Green’s stint in government, did the Financial Secretary or any other member of the Government discuss allegations of tax avoidance and evasion at HSBC with Lord Green? In 2011, HMRC was open about conducting investigations into the UK individuals on the so-called Falciani list. Can the Financial Secretary give a categorical statement about what discussions have been had between May 2010 and now between HMRC and members of the Government about such investigations?
	This Government have failed to back Labour in our calls to crack down on tax avoidance, whether on stopping hedge funds avoiding hundreds of millions—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I want to hear the end of this and I want the shadow Minister to be given the same courtesy as the Financial Secretary.

Shabana Mahmood: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	This Government have failed to back Labour in our calls to crack down on tax avoidance, whether on stopping hedge funds avoiding hundreds of millions in tax on shares or on closing the eurobonds loophole, and now it seems that wrongdoing may have been overlooked on their watch. As Richard Brooks, a former HMRC tax inspector, has said, the Treasury and HMRC
	“knew that there was a mass of evidence of tax evasion at the heart of HSBC”
	in 2011, but they
	“simply washed their hands of it.”

David Gauke: The essence of the hon. Lady’s speech was the accusation that wrongdoing has been overlooked on this Government’s watch, but events between 2005 and 2007 did not take place under our watch—the Labour party was in government between 2005 and 2007. The allegations relate to activity between 2005 and 2007.
	The hon. Lady’s first question was on what was done with the information. I almost feel like apologising to the House for going through this information in such excruciating detail. A total of 6,800 cases looked at and it was discovered that there were a number of duplications within those data: they were not clean data. That left 3,600 and there has been a full investigation of more than 1,000 of them—the remainder appear to have no case to answer—and a settlement has been reached. As a consequence, £135 million has been raised for the Exchequer that would not previously have been raised. If we put that in the context of the very many other measures that this Government have taken to deal with the problem, we will see that it demonstrates a Government willing to address it.
	Let me turn to Lord Green. He was a very successful trade Minister and there is no evidence to suggest that he was involved in or complicit with tax evasion activities. If we are talking about complicity and asking about what happened on someone’s watch, what about the City Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls)? Sadly, he is not in the Chamber today. Indeed, let us look at the failure of the previous Government to address issues of tax evasion and tax avoidance. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am struggling to hear the Minister. I think it is beneficial for the Chamber that we all hear the Minister.

David Gauke: The essence of the charge is that not enough has been done to address tax evasion or tax avoidance, but the reality is that this Government have consistently cleared up the mess that we inherited. It was the case that wealthy people could avoid paying stamp duty land tax—we have sorted that problem. It used to be the case that aggressive tax avoidance schemes were prevalent, meaning that people could sit on the
	cash for years while cases dragged through the courts—that has now been addressed through accelerated payments. It used to be the case that remuneration could be disguised through loans and other instruments and that no income tax would be paid—we have fixed that, although the Labour party voted against it.
	This Government have enabled HMRC to increase yields from £17 billion in 2010 to £26 billion this year, which is dramatic progress. Just as we have dealt with tax avoidance, we are dealing with tax evasion—we are seeing progress on the exchange of information—and that is a very big improvement on everything we inherited.

John Redwood: Is this not further proof that Labour’s fundamental changes to banking regulation at the beginning of its period in government did a lot of damage and meant that banks could not be regulated properly—most notably, they led to the collapse of a number of HSBC’s important competitors—and further evidence that Labour Members are blaming this Government for things that went wrong on their watch?

David Gauke: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are many issues that Labour Members should apologise for, but the one issue that they have apologised for was their failures in bank regulation, and this is further evidence of that.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that on his watch, as opposed to any other, there are currently about 3,250 people examining benefit fraud while only 300 HMRC people are examining fraud by wealthy tax dodgers, many of whom give a lot of money to the Tory party? Why is there one law for the rich and one for the poor? It is time he answered.

David Gauke: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s numbers are wrong. The biggest department in HMRC deals with enforcement and compliance. He may be referring specifically to the affluent unit or the high net worth unit, both of which are raising substantially more money now than under the previous Government. Again and again, the reality is that HMRC is now more successful in raising money from the wealthy and anyone else who tries to avoid their taxes.

Mark Garnier: The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards spent the thick end of 18 months looking into the activities and standards of banks, as well as the abject failure of regulation under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Does my hon. Friend agree that had the system in its report, which resulted in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, been in place, this would not have happened in the first place?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes an important point. One element of this is that we have to look at the regulation of banks, and there were clearly weaknesses in the system that we inherited. Just as we have addressed weaknesses in the way that tax was collected, we have addressed weaknesses in the way that banks were regulated.

Andrew Love: Tax evasion is illegal in this country and in Europe. How many prosecutions have resulted from the revelations of tax evasion at HSBC?

David Gauke: As I outlined in my remarks, the main focus for HMRC has been the use of civil penalties. That approach has been followed consistently under Governments of all colours. There has been one prosecution in respect of this evidence. It is worth pointing out that prosecutions as a whole are on course to increase fivefold in this Parliament.

Steven Baker: Successive Governments have incentivised particular investments using tax inducements, only to be surprised when things are taken too far. Will my hon. Friend publish a report that shows the extent to which this debacle was created by tax inducements introduced by the Labour party?

David Gauke: There clearly have been issues with some tax inducements being used for avoidance purposes. To be fair, this matter relates more to tax evasion. None the less, it is important that legislation is tested and it is important that we now have a general anti-abuse rule, which we did not have in 2010, to ensure that reliefs and exemptions are not exploited in a way that is contrary to Parliament’s intention.

Stewart Hosie: In March 2012, a protocol was signed between the UK and Swiss Governments, changing the previous tax agreement. It included the provision for a one-off payment to cover past misdeeds and tax rates of up to 41%. Given the revelations from HSBC, is it the Government’s intention to look again at the protocol, or does the Minister believe that it is robust enough for what we are seeing?

David Gauke: The Swiss deal is on course to bring in £1.2 billion that would not otherwise have been brought in. Since the agreement was signed, we have made much further progress, with 90 countries, including Switzerland, signing up to the automatic exchange of information, which means that the era of bank secrecy is over and that it will not be possible to hide assets in the way that it was in the past. That is a consequence of the UK’s leadership on this front.

Paul Burstow: While we are pursuing those who have benefited from the HSBC tax evasion scheme, what is being done to pursue those who designed and offered the scheme in the first place, and what questions are being asked of the auditors of the bank, such as why they do not appear to have blown the whistle on the scheme?

David Gauke: One challenge in this case is that the behaviour was carried out by a Swiss subsidiary in Switzerland. It is for the prosecuting authorities in this country and HMRC to decide whether any action can be taken against that HSBC entity. To make a wider point, the Government have taken a lot of action to strengthen the powers against those who promote tax avoidance schemes. Indeed, we are implementing reforms to tighten those powers, making it much harder for people to promote tax avoidance schemes.

Mike Kane: To the British people, this looks like one rule for the uber-wealthy and another rule for the rest of us. Will the Minister explain why there has been only one prosecution in five years?

David Gauke: Part of the issue is that, as I have said, HMRC has consistently used civil penalties as the most cost-effective way of collecting the revenue and changing behaviour. When these cases have been taken to the Crown Prosecution Service, it has taken the view that a successful prosecution would be unlikely without corroborating or additional evidence and just on the basis of the data from the leaks.

Margot James: The last Government presided over an unsustainable boom in the financial services sector and, at that time, aggressive tax avoidance flourished. What steps has my hon. Friend taken to close the tax loopholes that were left wide open by the last Government?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend raises a good question, and this Government have closed 42 loopholes. We inherited a tax system in which not enough had been done to tackle tax evasion or avoidance, and we have addressed that over the past four and a half years. That is partly why the yield from HMRC’s activities has risen from £17 billion in 2010 to a forecast £26 billion this year.

Jenny Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that he first received the files on this issue in 2010, and explain why in the past five years he has not seen fit to come to the House and share information about it? Indeed, he would not be here today had he not been dragged here by the Opposition.

David Gauke: This information about HSBC has been in the public domain since 2007—that is when the leaks occurred. The whole story may have come as a surprise to the hon. Lady, but it should not have done.

Mark Field: It is profoundly depressing that there is yet another scandal on the front pages to do with one of our banks, given the importance of a functioning banking system to our whole economy. It is also a bit depressing to watch people with the benefit of hindsight suggesting that they would have acted differently when in government. Will the Minister say how we can work across Parliament and all parties, to ensure a banking system that works for all small and medium-sized businesses that desperately require money to ensure ongoing economic growth?

David Gauke: I refer back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) about the work undertaken by the Banking Commission. I hope we have built a consensus around the significant reforms that occurred under this Government, which have put our banking sector on a much firmer footing.

Adrian Bailey: Small businesses, which are the life blood of our economy, often complain to me about the lack of flexibility they receive when dealing with HMRC. How can the Minister justify promoting the former chief executive of a bank
	that was actively promoting tax evasion and avoidance to Ministers? What sort of message does that send to small businesses and wealth creators in my constituency?

David Gauke: HMRC has successfully run the time to pay arrangements over a number of years, which has provided support to a large number of small businesses up and down the country. Lord Green was a very good trade Minister—[Interruption.] Yes, “was”, because he is no longer a Minister, which may have escaped the notice of some Opposition Members. He was qualified to perform the role of trade Minister, and there is no evidence to suggest that he was involved in any of these activities.

Tony Baldry: Will my hon. Friend clarify the fact that the previous Government introduced stamp duty intermediary relief in autumn 1997, and that the shadow Chancellor, who was then City Minister, extended that relief in 2007—relief that Labour now attacks? Is that a further example of confusion on the Opposition Benches about how to deal with tax avoidance?

David Gauke: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. That confusion was followed by the weekend’s confusion whereby countries that do not have a public central register—as opposed to other territories that do not have a public central register—are on a blacklist. Clearly the Labour party desires to say something about tax, but it is a pity that the bar is not set a little higher for it to say something sensible about tax.

Chris Bryant: The thing about the Prime Minister’s appointment of Stephen Green as trade Minister is that unfortunately the Prime Minister has got form on appointments—we have only to think of Andy Coulson. Somebody comes along from a company that has been up to no good, and the Prime Minister does not ask the important questions; he does not carry out due diligence but just goes, “Oh, you’re rich, you’re powerful. Come on in, no questions asked.” Does the Minister feel any element of shame that instead of tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance, this Government have effectively promoted it by putting it in the Government?

David Gauke: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that is pretty desperate. He says we have not dealt with tax avoidance and tax evasion. Look at the record. Look at the way the yield has increased. Look at the rules that have been changed. Look at HMRC’s additional powers. Look at the culture change we are seeing in this country, in terms of tax evasion and tax avoidance. I just regret that 10 years ago there was such a lax attitude to these things. The Government of the time have to accept some responsibility for that.

David Rutley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the failure of the previous Government to act on this matter fits with a pattern of inactivity on the deficit, on banking regulation and, again, on tax avoidance?

David Gauke: I think that is right. I suspect that the reason why the previous Government had a lack of grip and focus on tax evasion and tax avoidance was that there was simply the view that the public finances were going to be fine whatever, and that they did not really
	need the money and did not need to strain in this area. That is why there was a lack of progress. I am pleased that we are making that progress now.

Barry Sheerman: I do not want to personalise this; I have always rather admired Stephen Green for very many reasons. What I dislike is the culture that this HSBC scandal represents. The ordinary people in my constituency work hard and pay their taxes. They would get into terrible trouble if they tried to get away with anything. The fact is that those like PricewaterhouseCoopers, Grant Thornton and the banks, who have done these dodgy deals for years, have never had to pay.

David Gauke: When it comes to feeling abhorrence at the culture of those who think that they can not pay their fair share and can avoid or evade their taxes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. It is necessary to take that on—to make changes in the law where necessary and ensure that HMRC has the capability to address these matters. People in businesses should pay the tax that is due under the law.

Andrew Stephenson: Labour first talked about introducing a general anti-abuse tax rule in 1997, but in 13 years did absolutely nothing. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we have now introduced such rules to deter the creation of abusive tax avoidance schemes?

David Gauke: I can indeed. The previous Government looked at this and said it could not be done. We have looked at it, and have put rules in place. Indeed, we are looking at introducing penalties for breaches of them as well. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.

Diana Johnson: The Minister said a couple of times that there was no information or evidence against Lord Green at the time of his appointment. Can the Minister spell out exactly what due diligence was carried out at the time of his appointment?

David Gauke: On HSBC generally, there are clearly questions that need to be answered about what happened at HSBC between 2005 and 2007. HMRC has been taking action against about 1,000 people who were involved in this matter, where there is evidence that they have broken the UK law. HMRC will continue to take action in the event of any further evidence arising; I make that point about our approach. On Lord Green, what I would say is that he was a successful Trade Minister. There is no suggestion, and no regulator has suggested, that he was at fault with regard to what happened with the Swiss subsidiary.

Richard Harrington: The Government should be congratulated on the results they have achieved in collecting taxes that had been avoided and evaded because of a lax regime before they came to power. This is really two points. First, should blame be cast on this Government for something that happened, and does need investigating, when the previous Government were in power? Secondly, on the appointment of Lord Green,
	there was presumably at least the same level of due diligence as there was when the last Labour Prime Minister put him on his close business policy advisory committee.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes two good points. For the good of the public finances, we have taken tough action to deal with tax avoidance and evasion, and we will continue to do so, because that is what the British people expect of us.

David Winnick: Despite all the ministerial excuses, is not the truth that these tax cheaters and spivs—disgraceful people—are so connected with the Tory party that this Government will not take any action? They are allies of, and donate large sums to, the Tory party.

David Gauke: Putting aside the paranoia and conspiracy theories, let us consider the Government’s record and the steps we have taken, time and again, to ensure that those who should pay more in tax do pay more in tax. That is the reality.

Peter Bone: This is an artificially generated question, because there is a general election coming up. Everybody in the House is against evasion, which is illegal, and successive Governments have closed loopholes on avoidance. In fact, this Government have been rather good at that. Is this not just a general election question?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is more worldly than I am, perhaps, but he raises an important point. We have tried to do many things to reduce tax avoidance and evasion, but I accept that we have not been able to go back in time and stop it happening before we came to office.

Kevin Brennan: Ten years ago, when the Minister’s party was in opposition, Conservative Members, including the Chancellor, were calling for less, not more, regulation of the banks and the City. Will Lord Green be at the Tory party’s black and white ball tonight for the über-rich, and will the Minister advise Lord Green, if he has any spare cash, to donate it back to the taxpayer, instead of to the Tory party?

David Gauke: I think the hon. Gentleman has just made the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) raised in the previous question.

Julian Smith: Last week, Bill went missing. This week, it is Ed, who had sole responsibility for these issues in 2007. Why does the Minister think that no substantive action was taken in those years?

David Gauke: That is a very good question for the shadow Chancellor. It is a pity he is not here today.

Derek Twigg: In his statement, the Minister said that the information was passed to HMRC under conditions restricting what it could be used for. Will he enlighten the House on what those conditions were and whether Ministers were consulted about the nature of those restrictions?

David Gauke: The restrictions were essentially that the information could be used only for pursuing tax evasion prosecutions, not for other matters, such as money laundering prosecutions, for example. On the precise arrangements and conditions, it is worth pointing out that the first request for information was made by HMRC in February 2010, under the previous Government. I am not sure what conditions Ministers were consulted on at that point.

Sarah Newton: Like me, small businesses in my constituency paying their taxes get angry when they see big international corporations getting away with avoiding their taxes. Will my hon. Friend update us on the action he is taking to ensure that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax to HMRC?

David Gauke: On multinational companies, I would make three points. First, we are ensuring that HMRC’s large business unit has sufficient resources to monitor large businesses adequately. Secondly, we are leading on international reform through the base erosion and profit shifting project with the OECD. Thirdly, I would highlight the diverted profits tax measure announced at the last autumn statement, which has been consulted on in recent weeks, and for which we hope to legislate in the Finance Bill before the end of the Parliament.

Frank Dobson: The public cannot understand why the names of these self-confessed tax swindlers are remaining secret. Will the Government publish the list of those with whom HMRC has come to an agreement, so that the public can see it and we can check it against the list of donors to the Tory party?

David Gauke: HMRC is essentially performing the same process that has been undertaken for many years, including when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in office. It is consistent, for example, with the Liechtenstein disclosure facility, which was agreed by the previous Government, the point being that it is the most effective way of getting the tax, the interest and the penalty; of getting the money into the Exchequer; and of changing behaviour. I make no apology for HMRC pursuing that route as the first line, because it has proven to be effective.

David Mowat: Three years ago, HSBC was fined $2 billion for acting as money launderers for Mexican drug cartels. Those transactions, and those that we are discussing today, both happened before 2010. Is the Financial Secretary confident that the measures we brought in subsequently will stop either case from happening again? Has he had a discussion with HSBC regarding continued transgressions of this type and its banking licence?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When it comes to banking licences, politicians should perhaps not be directly involved; we have a regulator for that purpose. Ensuring a change of behaviour in our banks is important. We have all been appalled by this behaviour over the last few hours––for some of us, it has been longer. This occurred some years ago, at the same time as we saw banks acting recklessly in a number of ways. It is really important for the banking sector to
	get its house in order. We know that the reforms we have undertaken as a Government can play an important role in ensuring that happens.

John McDonnell: Let me ask a simple question. Was Lord Green interviewed about these matters by HMRC officials or the Cabinet Secretary at any time?

David Gauke: I am not aware of whether interviews were held on Lord Green’s appointment, either as a lord or as a business adviser, under the previous Government.

Charlie Elphicke: Is the Minister aware that in the years up to 2010, income tax receipts rose by 81%, while non-oil corporation tax receipts rose by 6%? Does he agree that an industrial-scale tax-avoidance culture arose, fanned by the prawn cocktail offensive, whereas this Government’s actions have helped to close the tax gap?

David Gauke: As a Government, we believe in low and competitive rates of corporation tax, but we also believe that those taxes should be paid. That is why we have strengthened the capacity of HMRC, why we are introducing the diverted profits tax, and why we are leading the way in international reforms of the corporate tax system.

Grahame Morris: The public are rightly concerned about the City financiers and hedge funds that donate large sums of money to the Conservative party, which is seemingly enriched by the tax avoiding and the dodgy dealings. The Minister says that it all happened on our watch. Why, then, in 2012, when this Government introduced the national loan guarantee scheme, did they not specifically exclude those companies that were based in foreign tax havens?

David Gauke: Let me address the issue of hedge funds. It was this Government who brought in some reforms to limited liability partnerships, which have resulted in a substantial increase in revenue from those partnerships, many of which are hedge funds.

David Nuttall: Can my hon. Friend reassure those of my constituents who seek to reduce their tax liability by, for example, investing in individual savings accounts—whether it be through HSBC or anyone else for that matter—that they are doing nothing illegal, and that it is only those seeking to evade tax by deliberately concealing their income, thereby misleading HMRC, who are breaking the law and risking prosecution?

David Gauke: Tax evasion is a criminal offence, and action will be taken in that regard. I should add that we also take firm action against aggressive, contrived, artificial avoidance. Having an ISA does not fall into that category, which is consistent with what Parliament intended, but when people try to abuse the rules, we will take action.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister cannot have it both ways. He has asserted several times today that Lord Green had no knowledge of, or involvement in, these issues as chairman of HSBC. That suggests to me that the Government asked those
	questions of Lord Green. In the interests of transparency, will the Minister now commit himself to placing in the Library all the information surrounding the questions that I assume have been asked, given his certainty in answering, so that we can be the judge?

David Gauke: I repeat that, as far as I am aware, no one has come forward with any evidence suggesting that Lord Green was involved in the activities of the Swiss subsidiary about which we have been talking today.

Robin Walker: Of course it is right for us to do all that we can to recover taxes that have been either wrongly avoided or illegally evaded, but is it not just as great a scandal that the Labour Government allowed their friends in private equity—the same people to whom they tried to sell Royal Mail and the Post Office—to avoid tax legally by keeping capital gains tax so low that multi-millionaires paid less tax than their cleaners?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. There was a problem with the way in which our system was working, and, as my hon. Friend says, the fact that cleaners paid a higher rate of tax than some people in private equity demonstrates how the last Government went awry.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Minister spoke about the leadership that the Prime Minister had shown on the issue of tax and transparency, but let us not forget that this was the same Prime Minister who said that he was relaxed about publishing his own tax return, and we are still waiting. Can the Minister update the House on his progress, and success, in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories? How many of them have committed themselves to, or ruled out, a public register?

David Gauke: We are still putting pressure on overseas territories and Crown dependencies, but all of them have signed up to the automatic exchange of information, which is a substantial breakthrough. I do not agree with the idea of putting all of them on a blacklist when France, Germany and the United States—indeed, 33 out of 34 OECD countries—have still not signed up to a public register. They are signed up, by and large, to a central register, but not yet to publishing it.

Bob Blackman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that over the last four years, as a result of tighter regulation and the closing of loopholes, an
	additional £31 billion has been collected in taxes from large businesses, and that much of it can be used to fund public services or pay down the deficit? Will he confirm that none of that happened under Labour?

David Gauke: As my hon. Friend says, £31 billion has been raised from large businesses as a consequence of HMRC’s compliance activity. That underlines our determination, and HMRC’s determination, to collect the tax that is due under the law.

Stephen Doughty: Will the Minister remind the House how much the Chancellor said would be raised by the Swiss tax deal, how much has actually been realised, and why he thinks the Chancellor got his sums so wrong, as he has in relation to so many other issues?

David Gauke: It was forecast that we would raise about £3 billion. The amount that we have raised so far is just short of £1 billion, and we expect that to rise to £1.2 billion. Other measures that we have introduced have raised more than the forecast amount, and that £1.2 billion would not have been raised had we not entered into the deal.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Minister agree that it is Labour Members who have a record of avoidance? They avoid talking about the economy, they avoid talking about immigration, and after today’s debate, in which their disastrous record in government has been exposed, they will not be talking about tax evasion either.

David Gauke: I can only say that I hope the country can avoid another Labour Government.

Michael Ellis: The public are rightly disgusted by tax evasion and avoidance, but is not the simple truth of the matter that when we cut through all the bluster from the Labour party, this Government have raised billions of pounds more than the previous Government did in this area, and have collected a huge sum more than Labour ever did?

David Gauke: I think that is a very good point to end on. Despite all the bluster, the numbers point to the fact that this Government are more successful in dealing with these matters than the previous Government were. It is not about the heat and the noise; it is about delivery, and this Government are delivering.

Social Security and Pensions (Statutory Instruments)

Steve Webb: I beg to move,
	That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this we shall discuss the following motion, on the guaranteed minimum pensions increase:
	That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.

Steve Webb: Let me first deal with what is an entirely technical matter that we attend to each year and that I imagine we will not need to dwell on today. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2015 provides for contracted-out defined-benefit schemes to increase their members’ guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997 by 1.2%.
	I should like to turn now to the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2015—and as we are about to spend nearly £3 billion of taxpayers’ money it is good to see that the Opposition Benches are packed. As you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not here to discuss the Welfare Benefits Up-rating 2015 Order, which was made on 14 January. The 1% increases in that order were debated in Parliament during the passage of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013.
	Let me begin with the basic state pension. Despite the difficult economic situation, this Government remain committed to protecting those who have worked hard all their lives. This is why we have stood by our triple lock commitment: to uprate the basic state pension by the highest of earnings, prices or 2.5%. This year, as the increase in average earnings and the increase in prices were less than 2.5%, the basic state pension will increase by the full 2.5%; that is twice the increase in prices and four times the increase in earnings, which is the minimum required by law. So the earnings increase is what we are required to do by law, and we are increasing the state pension by four times that amount. Occasionally we have had debates about the triple lock and Labour has queried whether it actually bites. In a year like this, it really bites. There is a substantial increase in the state pension—far more than inflation or the growth in the average wage.

Robin Walker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work he has done on this issue. Can he confirm that this approach means the average pensioner will be up to £560 better off during the lifetime of this Government as a result of not using earnings but using this triple lock?

Steve Webb: I can, indeed. It is unclear what the previous Government would have done if they had carried on. As far as we know, they would have used RPI until 2012 and then earnings probably from 2012. That is our best guess as to what they would have done, and that would have resulted in a pension of, as my hon. Friend says, more than £10 a week less than we will be paying.

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister also confirm the straightforward fact that if the previous arrangement of uprating by RPI had remained in place throughout this Parliament, the state pension would be higher now than the figure in this order before us?

Steve Webb: I will come on to the issue of the use of the RPI, because the right hon. Gentleman knows the RPI has fallen into disrepute and no credible Government would have continued with the RPI, so the question does not arise.
	The new rate of the state pension will be £115.95 a week for a single person, an increase of £2.85 from last year. We estimate this means the basic state pension will be around 18% of average earnings, and my hon. Friends might be interested to know that, as a share of the national average wage, that is the highest rate of state pension for over two decades. Thanks to the coalition Government’s commitment to the triple lock, a person on a full basic state pension will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) said, receive around £560 more in 2015-16 than if the basic state pension had been uprated only by earnings during this Parliament. That commitment means that, since coming into office, this coalition has increased the basic state pension by about £950 a year.
	The triple lock applies to the basic state pension, and the question is: what should we do for the poorest pensioners on pension credit? Under the law left to us by the previous Government, we are required to uprate pension credit only in line with earnings. We could therefore have done the legal minimum and put the pension credit up by about 0.6%. However, we thought that that was too little for the poorest pensioners. We wanted to ensure that the very poorest pensioners, those who are dependent exclusively on the guaranteed credit, would benefit in full from the triple lock.
	Each year, the standard minimum guarantee must be increased only in line with earnings, which would have equated to 0.6%, but to ensure that the poorest pensioners benefited from the full cash value of the increase in the basic state pension, we decided to increase the value of the standard minimum guarantee by 1.9%, so that single people would receive an increase of £2.85 a week and couples would receive an increase of £4.35 a week. Consistent with our approach last year, the resources needed to pay for this above-earnings increase to the standard minimum guarantee have been found by increasing the savings credit threshold, which means that those with higher levels of income may see less of an increase.
	This year, the state earnings-related pension scheme—SERPS—and the other second pensions will rise by 1.2%. Labour froze SERPS pensions in 2010, but this will be the fifth year in a row that the coalition has uprated SERPS by the full value of the CPI.
	This year, the coalition will continue to ensure that those people who face additional costs because of their disability, and who may have less opportunity to increase their income through paid employment, will see their benefits increase by the full value of the CPI. So disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carers allowance, incapacity benefit and personal independence payment will all rise by 1.2 % from April 2015. In addition, those disability-related and carer premiums paid with pension credit and working-age benefits will also rise by 1.2%, as will the employment and support allowance support
	group rate and the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit. Pensioner premiums paid with working-age benefits will increase in line with pension credit.
	We have been debating the use of the CPI on a more or less annual basis for the past four years. When we first switched to using the CPI, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) was responding to the debate. He rather inventively accused us of being “ideologically driven” in our switch to the consumer prices index from the retail prices index. The choice of a price index for the uprating of benefits is not quite up there alongside the great battle between communism and capitalism, is it? At the time, however, he said:
	“Changing permanently from RPI to CPI, other than in this year, and keeping things that way even after the deficit is long gone, is plainly not a deficit reduction measure—it is ideologically driven, and the Opposition do not support it.”—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1182.]
	Since then, there has been a great deal of analysis of the suitability of different price indices, and his view that we should somehow clear the deficit—I do not know when, under his plan—and then go back to the good old RPI is no longer credible. I hope that he will set out his position on uprating when he responds.
	The right hon. Gentleman is sceptical of my views on these matters—he hides it well, but he probably is—so I want to bring forward two witnesses. My first witness is Tim Harford, who presents the BBC’s statistics programme “More or Less”.

Mark Harper: Very good!

Steve Webb: I know that my hon. Friend listens to nothing other than podcasts of “More or Less”. When Tim Harford was interviewed on the “Today” programme recently, he was asked what his favourite statistic was. The nation waited, agog to hear his reply. He said it was the CPI. So when the BBC’s go-to guy for statistical rigour and reliability was asked to choose from a multiplicity of official statistics, he homed in on the CPI as the epitome of a good statistic. We therefore make no apology for using it.
	The national statistician, Sir Andrew Dilnot, commissioned Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to carry out a review of price indices. This year, we had four to choose from: RPI, RPIJ, CPIH and CPI. We have opted for CPI. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to imply that we should use RPI, perhaps because it is bigger, but it is interesting to note what Paul Johnson said about RPI, to which the Opposition are still wedded—or at least they were, the last time I heard. Paul Johnson’s recommendation was:
	“ONS and the UK Statistics Authority should re-state its position that the RPI is a flawed statistical measure of inflation which should not be used for new purposes”.
	He went on to state:
	“Government and regulators should work towards ending the use of the RPI as soon as practicable.”
	He made it absolutely clear that RPI was flawed and that we should restate that fact, which I am happy to do. He thought that RPIJ should probably be discontinued and that CPIH needed some methodological work to get it right. So CPI is the only credible index available to
	us. If the right hon. Gentleman implies in his response that we should use something else, I would like to know his basis. We believe the price index should be chosen on the basis not of whether it is high or low, but whether it is accurate. That has been the policy of this Government.

Sarah Newton: Does the Minister agree that through these tough times it is important that carers and people with disabilities are given the maximum—the CPI—increase to their benefits? Is that not the fair thing to do?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right; when we made difficult decisions about the general level of uprating, we made sure that the benefits for people with disabilities—the disability living allowance, personal independence payment and so on—were excluded from the 1% cap, and they will get 1.2% next April. It is worth saying, although I have not referred to it yet, that we base our April uprating on the previous September’s index, which was 1.2%. She will know that since then inflation has tumbled, with it being 0.5% in the last figures published. I do not have a crystal ball and I have not seen the figures that will be published next week, but some are speculating that inflation could be closer to zero or even negative. In that context, making sure that people on disability benefits get last year’s inflation rate will, we hope, given that petrol and food prices are now falling, improve their real standard of living. So I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention.
	At a time when the nation’s finances remain under pressure, this Government will be spending an extra £2.5 billion in 2015-16; continuing to help support those who are not currently in work by increasing the main rates of working age benefits by 1%, and ensuring that pensions, and benefits designed to help with the additional costs of disability, are protected against the cost of living. Let me give the breakdown: about £2 billion more on state pensions, including an above-inflation increase for the basic state pension; £300 million more on disabled people and their carers; and nearly £200 million more on people unable to work because of sickness or unemployment.
	In these orders, we continue to maintain our commitment to the triple lock—I would like that to be written into the law of the land in the new Parliament—meaning the basic state pension will be at its highest level as a percentage of average earnings for two decades; we continue to protect our poorest pensioners with an over-indexation of the standard minimum guarantee, so they too will feel the benefit of the triple lock; and we continue to protect the benefits that reflect the additional costs that disabled people face. On that basis, I commend these orders to the House.

Stephen Timms: I thank the Minister for his explanation and confirm that I do not plan to express concerns about the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2015. I do, however, wish to comment on the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2015, on which he spent most of his time.
	As we noted last year, this is a rather thinner debate than the corresponding ones prior to 2014. Much of what we used to consider in these debates is now covered
	by the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013, which imposed a 1% uprating for this year, and so is outside the scope of these orders. Uprating this year is notable for one element at least: for the first time since its introduction, the so-called “triple lock”, which the Minister referred to on a number of occasions, has delivered a higher rise in the state pension than the formula in use up to 2010 would have done.
	The term “triple lock” was intended to convey the impression of great generosity towards pensioners, but it is worth just reflecting again on the history of its use. In its first year it was announced but not actually used, because it would have delivered a pension rise that was too small and so the Minister overrode it and adopted RPI. He told us a few minutes ago that he did not think much of RPI, but he used it in the first year in place of the triple lock, because the triple lock would have delivered a small rise. He was sensible to override the triple lock, because clearly it would have been unwise to use it in that first year. In the following three years, the triple lock was applied and in each year it delivered a pension increase that was lower than the increase that would have been delivered under the formula in use previously—uprating in line with the increase in RPI.
	This year, for the first time, the increase will be slightly greater than would have been delivered under the previous formula. The increase in this order is 2.5%—the minimum allowed under the current arrangements—whereas the increase in RPI is slightly lower at 2.3%. It remains the case that the basic state pension for 2015-16 would be higher than the figure in the order, under paragraph 4(3)(b), if the formula in use before the general election had been applied each year since then, instead of the triple lock. Contrary to the impression that is frequently given, the triple lock has in fact delivered a lower state pension in each year that it has been applied than the previous arrangement would have done. We are often told that the triple lock is this extraordinarily generous arrangement, when, in fact, it is less generous and delivers less to pensioners than the previous arrangement would have done.

Steve Webb: Just for the avoidance of doubt, we are paying a pension increase this April that is four times the rate of earnings growth and double the rate of headline inflation. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that that is not enough?

Stephen Timms: I am merely pointing out to the Minister that the increase is 0.2 percentage points higher than the increase in the RPI. Before the last election, the state pension was raised in line with the RPI. If that arrangement had continued each year since 2010, the state pension would be higher for the coming year than the figure in the order in front of us. I simply think that, in listening to his frequent protestations about how generous the Government have been to pensioners, the House should be aware that in every single year since 2010 the level of the state pension is lower than it would have been if the previous arrangement had stayed in place—except for the first year when they matched what the arrangement would have been before the election. That is surprising, especially in light of the fact that Ministers keep on telling us about their generosity towards pensioners.
	As well as the state pension, the order contains uprating details for universal credit. Those are currently largely of academic interest, because so few people are in receipt of universal credit. The Government announced in November 2011 that a million people would be claiming universal credit by April 2014. That was an absurd boast, as we pointed out at the time. The Government have consistently failed to grasp the scale of what would be required to implement universal credit. The latest figure for universal credit claimants is 27,000. At the present glacial rate of progress, it will be 1,571 years before the transition to universal credit is complete.
	In 2011, Ministers said that transition to universal credit would be complete by 2017, a date that was then six years ahead. Now we are told that the transition to universal credit will be complete by 2021 at the earliest, which is six years away. Expected completion has slipped by four years in four years. The National Audit Office reports that £344 million had been invested in universal credit IT up to 31 October 2014, but that the value of the assets created by that date was £125 million—little more than a third of the sum invested. Waste on such a large scale reflects just how much trouble this project is now in, and the problems continue. Last October, the Department predicted that there would be 100,000 people claiming universal credit by May of this year. I recently tabled a written question to inquire whether Ministers still thought that that would be achieved. The Minister for Disabled People the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), whom I am delighted to see in his place, answered the question on 26 January. He said:
	“The latest forecast agreed with OBR still rounds to 0.1 million cases”.
	So the figure has clearly already slipped again, and that is only since October.
	This debate is the last of its kind before the election, so it gives us an opportunity to reflect on the cumulative impact of the Government's changes to benefits in this order and the previous ones. That task has been greatly assisted by the publication last month of the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies—the former employer of the Minister for Pensions—on “The effect of the coalition's tax and benefit changes on household incomes and work incentives.” It is a very revealing analysis. Let me quote the opening couple of sentences, which say:
	“Tax and benefit changes introduced by the coalition have reduced household incomes by £1,127 a year or 3.3% on average...These involve an average loss to households of £489 per year, comprising an average gain of £321 a year from cuts to direct taxes, an average loss of £333 a year from increases in indirect taxes and a £477 a year average loss from benefit cuts.”
	Even the gain through direct taxes is outweighed by the loss through indirect taxes, never mind the bigger loss from benefit cuts as a result of this order and its predecessors.
	The report goes on to state:
	“Low-income working-age households have lost the most as a percentage of their income from tax and benefit changes introduced by the coalition…Middle-income working-age households without children have gained the most”.
	That is what the Government have achieved. Low-income households have lost and middle-income households have gained. That is not what the Minister and his hon. Friends used to argue for when they were in opposition, but it is what they have delivered in office.
	The IFS found that households with children have been hit hardest by tax and benefit changes. The poorest households with children have lost more than 6% of their incomes and those without children in the middle of the income distribution have seen their incomes rise as a result of tax and benefit changes, as they have benefited from personal allowance increases and have not been affected by social security changes such as those to tax credits. Families out of work or with only one parent in work lost almost £2,000 a year as a result of the changes, while families with both parents in work lost between £1,000 and £1,500 a year.
	The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), published new analysis from the House of Commons Library last week that shows that five more years of failure to make work pay of the kind we have seen in the past five years, with wages today on average £1,600 less in real terms than at the general election, and wages falling short of expectations to the same extent in the next Parliament as they have in this, would mean another £10 billion in social security spending on top of the figure already projected.
	The Government’s own Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, in its second annual assessment of progress towards the 2020 child poverty targets, was scathing. It states:
	“The impact of welfare cuts and entrenched low pay will bite between now and 2020. Poverty is set to rise, not fall. We share the view of those experts who predict that 2020 will mark not the eradication of child poverty but the end of the first decade in recent history in which absolute child poverty increased…We have come to the reluctant conclusion that, without radical changes to the tax and benefit system to boost the incomes of poor families, there is no realistic hope of the statutory child poverty targets being met in 2020.”
	The Minister served, as I did, on the Public Bill Committee on the Child Poverty Act 2010. He argued then that the targets should be more demanding, but his legacy, and that of his colleagues, will be that there is no realistic hope of achieving those targets by 2020.
	Should we be elected in May, our approach will be different. We will balance the books and get the national debt falling in a fair way. We also want the Office for Budget Responsibility to monitor and report on the Government’s progress in reducing child poverty. That is something that the OBR should do. We plan to restrict the growth of benefit spending through stronger, more balanced economic growth and more good jobs paying decent wages. We will tackle low pay and insecurity, raise the minimum wage and improve its enforcement, tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts and expand free child care for working parents. We will incentivise payment of the living wage by employers by offering a 12-month tax break employers who raise their employees’ wages to that level. We will introduce our compulsory jobs guarantee to get more young and long-term unemployed people off benefits and into work.
	We will reform the banks and end the dither on big decisions, such as airport expansion, with an independent infrastructure commission, and we will back British firms by cutting business rates for small firms and unashamedly arguing for Britain to stay in a reformed European Union. We have a radical plan for spreading power and prosperity across the country, including
	giving England’s city and county regions more power over their public transport networks and devolving £30 billion-worth of funding over five years to the English regions. We will tackle the housing crisis with a commitment to build 200,000 homes a year by 2020.
	We could have recognised the case for a temporary use of CPI for benefit uprating as an element of a balanced programme of deficit reduction. We do not, though, support the Government’s decision to adopt CPI permanently. We do support the increase in the state pension in line with the triple lock, and as voting against this measure would have the effect of delivering no increase at all, I will not be asking my hon. Friends to vote against the orders.
	When we look at the impact on poverty and on middle income households of the policies that have been adopted over the past five years, it is clear that it is urgently time for a change.

Steve Webb: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) will not be asking his hon. Friends to vote against the orders because he has sent them all home, as far as I can tell.
	Let me try to deal with a few of the points that were raised. There were lots of comparisons between the rate we are paying and what would otherwise have happened, so to be clear about the £560 statistic, the comparison is as follows: the basic state pension—the £520 comparison—is the triple lock against earnings. That is what would have happened, compared with uprating in line with earnings, but there are several different benchmarks.
	On the state pension, we cannot have these debates without refreshing our memory. One of the reasons that we have the triple lock and that 2.5% floor is that the Opposition, when in government, once raised the pension by a paltry 75p. They were so embarrassed by that that they had to have a £5 increase the next year. We do not think that is good policy, so we say that there should be a worthwhile increase each year, which is where the triple lock comes in.
	The right hon. Gentleman says that the benchmark is lower than it would have been if we had linked the pension to an index of inflation which the Office for National Statistics report says is discredited, so why is that an interesting comparison? He says that the Labour party rejects the move to CPI, but presumably he is not committing to RPI as he is not allowed to make any spending commitments because the shadow Chancellor will not let him. “Vacuous posturing” is a rude phrase and I would not use it. The Opposition do not like what we are doing, but to imply that in a year when we are increasing the benefit by four times the average wage and twice the rate of inflation that that is still not enough is extraordinary.
	If the right hon. Gentleman wants to stand up and say, “We’d pay a higher pension,” fine. He is entitled to say that, but he has not said that Labour would pay a higher pension. He wants us to think that, but there is no money to pay a higher pension. He simply wants to imply that Labour would do so. He says that the Opposition reject CPI as the main measure, but he has not told us what it would be. How can people vote for the Labour party in anticipation of what it would do on the pension
	when it has not said what it would do on the pension? I hope that before the election Labour say what it would do. There was an opportunity to do so this afternoon and the right hon. Gentleman failed to take it.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of universal credit, a matter which is regularly debated in the House. He referred to the current rate of progress and said that it will go on for ever. He understands the importance of an accelerating process—the need to get a benefit right and to start with a limited group before applying it to a broader group, and that is exactly what has been happening with universal credit. It is worth saying that our projections for the numbers on universal credit are affected to some extent by the jobs revolution that is going on. As fewer people are unemployed, fewer people will be within the scope of universal credit. Every time we look at the numbers, falling unemployment is one of the factors that reduce the number of people on universal credit.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the IFS report. It was quite candid about a number of limitations. For example, it acknowledged that the figures it uses assume that everybody takes up their benefits, which we know is not the case, so that is an unrealistic assumption. Crucially, the report does not include spending on public services. We know that the poorest 20% of households get five times as much value in kind from public spending as they contribute in tax, so the fact that we have ring-fenced the key public services, such as health and schools, is of huge benefit to those at the bottom of the pile, but that is not something that the report takes into account.
	The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned work incentives. The IFS report states:
	“By cutting benefits for non-working families and increasing the personal allowance, the coalition has significantly strengthened average financial incentives to work for most groups.”
	He says that there is a challenge, and of course there has been over the past four or five years. On one hand the Opposition say that we have not cut the deficit enough, but on the other hand they have voted against practically every measure we have brought forward to tackle it.

Stephen Timms: indicated dissent.

Steve Webb: The Opposition voted against the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which made the principal changes necessary for reducing the deficit. They recognise that, had they been in office, there would have been substantial cuts in public spending, and no doubt that would have
	included social security, which is one of the biggest single areas of public spending, but they have had the luxury of never having to say where the cuts would have been made. The right hon. Gentleman knows in his heart of hearts that, had his party been in office, there would have been significant reductions in spending on social security, so he cannot compare the situation with some blank sheet of paper against some benign economic backdrop. In the last year of the previous Labour Government we saw record borrowing—£150 billion, which is an extraordinary amount of money—so the idea that they could somehow have closed the deficit without having any impact on people’s living standards is extraordinary and unrealistic.
	Let us be absolutely clear about the comparison figures. On the issue of the level of the pension, compared with what it might have been, £560 is the key figure we should be using. What we have done through the triple lock, and through each successive measure, means that the pension is higher than it would have been under the policy that the Labour party told us it would implement—RPI to 2012 on earnings, which was in its manifesto—and higher than it would have been had we gone for earnings throughout. Obviously, the figures depend on which baseline one assumes. The idea that the Labour party, had it been in office, would have carried on with RPI, ignoring the statisticians telling them that it should not be used and ignoring the fiscal position, is simply implausible, because it is not a relevant benchmark.
	These regulations are important because they pave the way for the next step in our efforts to restore the state pension to where it should have been—a decent amount that provides security and dignity for people in old age. What matters is what people get in retirement, relative to what they used to earn, and on that measure the state pension as a share of the national average wage, and the pension as a result of these regulations, will be at their highest level for more than two decades. That is something of which this Government can be proud. I commend the regulations to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Pensions

Resolved,
	That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.—(Steve Webb.)

Social Security (Statutory Instruments)

Mark Harper: I beg to move,
	That the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this we shall take the following motion, on pneumoconiosis:
	That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.

Mark Harper: I am sorry that the names of these regulations are not very catchy, but they are important none the less. I confirm that they are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The two schemes stand apart from the main social security uprating procedure, and there is no legislative requirement to review the level of payment each year. However, I am happy to increase the amounts payable for 2015 by CPI—that is, 1.2% as at September 2014, which is the same rate being applied to some social security disability benefits and industrial injuries disablement benefit. I was here for the previous debate when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions clearly set out why CPI, rather than the discredited retail prices index, is the right measure by which to increase these benefits. I do not propose to detain the House by repeating his very clear and detailed explanation.
	The Government recognise that people suffering from diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos or one of a number of other listed agents may not be able to bring a successful claim for civil damages, partly due to the time lag between exposure and onset of the disease, which could be as long as 40 years. As well as compensating people who cannot make civil claims, these two schemes fulfil an important role by ensuring that most sufferers receive compensation while they can still benefit from it.
	The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 provides a lump sum compensation payment to those who suffer from one of five dust-related respiratory diseases, who are unable to claim damages from employers who have gone out of business, and who have not brought any action against others for damages. The 2008 scheme provides compensation to people who contracted mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation for that disease under the ’79 Act, perhaps because their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 scheme means that payments can be made quickly to mesothelioma sufferers at their time of greatest need.
	Under both schemes, a claim can be made by a dependant if the sufferer has died before being able to make a claim. Payment levels under the ’79 Act scheme are mainly based on the level of the disablement assessment and the age of the sufferer at the time the disease is diagnosed. The highest amounts are paid to those diagnosed at an early age and with the highest level of disablement. All payments for mesothelioma under the ’79 Act scheme are made at the 100% disablement rate—the highest rate of payment. Similarly, all payments under the 2008 scheme are made at the 100% disablement rate and
	based on age, again with the highest payments going to the younger sufferers. In the last full year, April 2013 to March 2014, over 3,700 payments were made in respect of both schemes, totalling over £54 million.
	These regulations increase the levels of support through the Government compensation schemes. I am sure we all agree that while no amount of money can ever compensate individuals and families for the suffering and loss caused by mesothelioma, those who are suffering rightly deserve some form of monetary compensation. I commend the regulations to the House.

Kate Green: I thank the Minister for his remarks. Labour Members welcome the uprating by 1.2% of payments made under these two important schemes. As he said, there is no requirement for those payments to be uprated, but it is surely right, at the very least, that those who receive awards under the schemes should see them rise in line with increases to social security disablement benefits.
	As things stand, the uprating of the payments has to be confirmed by a Minister bringing forward legislation in the House in each year that uprating takes place. When the regulations were considered last year in the Delegated Legislation Committee that met on 24 March, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) suggested that the awards should be put on a statutory footing. The then Minister for disabled people, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), said that the Government were actively reviewing the way in which uprating could be done in future. What consideration have the Government given to that approach since then?
	For a number of years, when uprating regulations have been debated, the main item of discussion has been the differential treatment of dependants and sufferers under the schemes. Dependants receive lower awards than sufferers in three ways. First, the cut-off age for dependants to be in receipt of an award under these schemes is 67, compared with 77 for in-life claims. Secondly, some in-life claimants can receive a 10% enhancement under the 1979 scheme, although not the 2008 scheme. Thirdly, awards to sufferers are in any event set at a higher level than those made to dependants.
	Those anomalies have long concerned hon. Members, and furthermore they are at odds with the treatment of civil mesothelioma claims for compensation in the courts, where dependants actually receive higher awards. As hon. Members will appreciate, the speed and ferocity of these terrible diseases means that differentials can operate particularly harshly. Some sufferers, for example, may feel under pressure to rush through a claim to ensure that the maximum amount can be secured for their loved ones—a truly distressing experience when the life that remains to them is so short—while others may simply be too sick to claim at all before they die, and some may not be diagnosed while they are alive.
	In 2010, my noble Friend Lord McKenzie of Luton took steps to eliminate the difference in treatment and began work towards equalising payments for dependants and sufferers. There has been no further progress, however, in narrowing the gap since then. I did not hear the Minister say anything about that, and it appears that it has once again been overlooked.
	On 7 March 2013, when these schemes were considered by the Delegated Legislation Committee, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), recognised the wish to equalise payments for dependants and for sufferers and said that the Government were keeping the issue under active review, but at that time he blamed the economic situation for lack of progress since 2010. What further consideration have the Government given to moving towards equalisation, and what sort of economic performance do they believe would create the conditions for reducing the differential?
	My understanding—I think this was confirmed by the Minister, although I may have misunderstood him—is that the vast majority of awards are made to sufferers and only a small number to dependants, so what estimate has he made of the cost of full or partial equalisation between the two schemes? How much has been recovered from civil compensation compared with the cost of the schemes, and is there any scope this year to fund some of the cost of equalisation from the civil compensation recoveries?
	These matters have been raised each year we have debated the regulations, and I hope the Minister will at the very least be able to assure the House that they are not dropping off the radar. They are of deep importance to sufferers and to their families.
	Finally, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead told us last year in Committee that the Health and Safety Executive would launch a campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of asbestos and that there would be a full evaluation of that campaign’s effectiveness. Everyone knows the importance of repeatedly reminding people of the threat that asbestos poses—even today when so much is understood about its dangers—and how, in so many industrial and other settings, people continue to be at risk and exposed to it. Will the Minister update us on the progress of the HSE campaign and tell us what formal evaluation has been or will be carried out?
	We certainly do not object to the uprating announcements that the Minister has made, but I hope he will be able to say something about the Government’s intentions in relation to becoming more generous to sufferers of some of the most terrible diseases that people can die of—diseases that are almost invariably contracted through no fault of the sufferer him or herself. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Gemma Doyle: Mesothelioma is a disease that affects far too many of my constituents. In fact, numerous studies show that some parts of my constituency have the highest percentage of asbestos-related disease per head of population in the UK by a considerable measure. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green): of course, we welcome the uprating, but it is still some way from the compensation levels that people suffering from this awful disease should receive and deserve to receive.
	I want to mention the Clydebank Asbestos Group in my constituency. While the Prime Minister faffs around with his big society project, its members just get on with helping their fellow Bankies and people across Scotland who have been diagnosed with this terrible disease. The
	Mesothelioma Act 2014 was very welcome—it was overdue—and it obviously means that many people can access compensation that they would not otherwise have had.
	It is not acceptable that those responsible for poor working conditions or for exposing employees, tenants and others to asbestos can shirk their responsibility and live their lives without consequences, while too many of our constituents have succumbed to this terrible disease or have watched their loved ones die. I suspect that if we looked at the uprating of the payments compared with the profits of the insurance industry over the past year, we would see a significant difference, and that makes the case for making compensation levels far higher than those set thus far.
	There is still a serious anomaly for veterans diagnosed with mesothelioma. It was brought to the Government’s attention by the Royal British Legion, as well as by me and other hon. Members some five months ago. It is a clear breach of the armed forces covenant because veterans diagnosed with mesothelioma are receiving only a fraction of the compensation paid to civilians—in some cases, up to £100,000 less—which is clearly unacceptable. I appreciate that this is an issue for both the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Defence, but five months ago we were told that the matter would be looked at urgently and that there would be action. Will the Minister discuss that with his colleagues in the MOD as a matter of urgency?

Tracey Crouch: I apologise for missing the beginning of the Minister’s speech, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to say a few words on this incredibly important matter.
	I represent Chatham, where the former dockyard was involved in ship lagging for many years—centuries in fact—so the issue of mesothelioma is very dear to my heart and to those of my constituents. Chatham is one of the UK hot spots for mesothelioma, and for that reason I have been very passionate about the issue for many years, including before I entered the House.
	Today’s announcement of the uprating of benefits for mesothelioma claims is obviously very welcome. It is fair to say that the Government have made great progress on compensating those who could not trace their insurer in the past. I know that that scheme is different from the one we are discussing now, but compensation and benefits for mesothelioma quite often get mixed up into one big pot, and people sometimes find it very difficult to navigate their way around the various schemes available. I appreciate the fact that the Government have made great progress in ensuring that people not subject to this scheme can find a way to get the compensation they are owed if they cannot trace their insurer, although some people who claimed benefits for mesothelioma but were then successful in the Government’s other scheme have lost 100% of the compensation to receive only 80% in return.
	I want to touch on the points made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about research and other establishments. The research still has some way to go, and people are not necessarily coming forward to take advantage of existing research bursaries.
	I recently visited the university of Greenwich, which has a base on the Medway campus. It is doing great work on trying to identify ways to break the link in the chemical structures that form mesothelioma. As well as having a fantastic re-acquaintance with the chemistry I learned at school and learning what double bonding was, I was told of some interesting research that it had done into the number of research papers on mesothelioma. It found that in one year, there had been only 15 papers across the entire world, compared with thousands and thousands on other cancers. We clearly have a long way to go.
	Traditionally, asbestos conditions, particularly mesothelioma, have been linked with industrial employment. We are now seeing an increase in the number of people from other sectors, particularly the teaching profession, who are becoming the victims of mesothelioma. Something like 122 former teachers died of mesothelioma last year.
	It is important that people who are getting this incredibly painful cancer, and who will die very quickly as a consequence, are getting the money that they deserve. Although we have had long discussions about dependants—I note that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston raised this matter in her speech—there is still a long way to go before we give mesothelioma victims adequate compensation and the benefits that they deserve.
	I welcome the uprating today. It is an incredibly important step forward. I am pleased that there will be no Division, because this is a sensible thing to do for those who get this horrible disease. There is so much more that we need to continue to discuss in this Chamber and elsewhere to ensure that people who get this horrible cancer, who will die quickly and painfully, are given the right amount of money and the compensation that they deserve, and to ensure that this Government and future Governments continue to support research into this incredibly important area.

John Woodcock: May I, too, apologise for missing the start of the debate? I was taken by surprise by the starting time.
	I wholeheartedly endorse what has been said by Members on both sides of the Chamber. This is an important step forward, but it is not the last word on the matter. Mesothelioma victims and those who represent them have struggled for years to get justice. They were disappointed when this Government chose to cap payouts at 80%. Nevertheless, it is progress. We have seen an all too slow but steady improvement from the days of the last Labour Government, when I was pleased to play a small part in setting up the 2008 scheme at the Department for Work and Pensions.
	Progress has been made since then, but let us not forget that this House and this country owe a debt of gratitude and responsibility to those people and their families, because they gave their lives to national service in shipyards across our country to build the ships that kept us safe. Through no fault of their own, they put themselves in the care of employers who exposed them to this lethal, horrific disease from which they are still suffering. The country still has a duty of care to those sufferers, and their struggle for overall justice will go on.

Mark Harper: I will try to respond to all the questions that have been asked.
	The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), asked about the progress that has been made to change the statutory position on uprating. That remains under review, but the House can see the Government’s view clearly from the fact that I am bringing forward the orders to increase the payments by the rate of CPI. As hon. Members have said, that reflects the importance of uprating the amount in line with inflation.
	The shadow Minister and one or two other Members referred to the balance between the compensation that is paid to sufferers of the disease and that which is paid to their dependants. The main intention of the schemes was to ensure that financial support went to the people suffering from those diseases. They were set up as they were, with no fault having to be produced and a focus on the speed with which payments were made, to ensure that the support could go to the sufferer of the disease while they were still in a position to benefit from financial compensation.
	When the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 was debated in the House—the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) referred to his part in that—I was a shadow Minister and the Bill had the full support of the Conservative Opposition. One issue was about ensuring that we were speedy in providing compensation, given the small gap between when someone is diagnosed with mesothelioma and, sadly, their inevitable death. We got compensation to people while they were still able to—I am not sure “enjoy” is the right word, but to benefit from it to the extent that that was possible.
	The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) is right to say that most payments are made to sufferers rather than dependants: in 2013-14, 3,410 payments were made to sufferers and 360 to dependents. As my predecessor rightly said in the debate last year, the case for the equalisation of those payments was kept under review, and our most recent assessment is that it would cost a further £2 million a year. It is worth putting on record that in the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the 2008 schemes, payments substantially outweigh the money received from compensation recovery. There is no money sitting around to make those payments. The Government paid out more than £54 million of taxpayers’ money, and recovered just under £26 million. The two schemes together cost the taxpayer nearly £29 million, and in the current financial position one has to make difficult choices about funding these schemes. They are already costing £29 million, and it would cost a further £2 million to make those changes. However, we will keep the position under review.
	The hon. Lady referred to what the Health and Safety Executive is doing to raise awareness of the dangers of asbestos. I am familiar with that because I launched the current £1.13 million awareness campaign last October, which was particularly aimed at helping at-risk workers recognise that asbestos was relevant to them and their work. It encouraged them to seek reliable information about how they can protect themselves, and encourage and enable safer working with asbestos through behavioural change.
	On the day we launched that campaign I went to a large company that sells product to small traders, who are often at risk when they carry out that work. We used information packs and information that small traders could use and access on their smartphones to answer questions about the type of properties they were working in and the risks they may face, and those I spoke to found that helpful. That campaign is due to end in March, and a fuller valuation of it will be undertaken before any decision is made about a further campaign in the next financial year. The HSE and those in the various trades that are affected by this issue take it very seriously. I was encouraged to see that there is a fair degree of knowledge about it, although not as much as one would hope, given the serious health consequences of not taking the issue seriously.
	The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) made a point that was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), which was that sufferers of this disease are not evenly distributed throughout the United Kingdom. They reflect industrial work patterns and are not evenly spread, and some Members who have spoken today will obviously have a larger number of constituents who are affected.
	The hon. Members for West Dunbartonshire and for Barrow and Furness also referred to the new scheme that was set up last year. That is not what we are debating now, but in case hon. Members are not already aware—I am sure they are—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) has secured a debate on that issue this Wednesday in Westminster Hall at 9.30 am. I will be responding on behalf of the Government and will deal with any questions that hon. Members may have.
	The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire raised an issue concerning the armed forces. If she will forgive me, I will take that away and raise it with my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. I am not quite sure what the answer will be, but I suspect that the most sensible way to progress is for either me or a Defence Minister to write to the hon. Lady and to put a copy of the letter in the House of Commons Library. I have no doubt that she will be assiduous in pursuing us if that does not happen on a timely basis, or if she is not satisfied with the response.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred to the increasing incidence of the disease. There is a very long period between people being exposed to asbestos and being diagnosed and, sadly, dying from the disease. The latest available information suggests that the number of deaths will continue to increase and peak at about 2,500 in 2018, but will then start to fall, reflecting a reduction in asbestos exposure following its peak use in the 1960s and 1970s. The research she mentions is clearly important. If there are bursaries out
	there, it is obviously helpful if people take them up. More research by some of our best scientists would clearly be welcome to see if there is anything that can be done, once people have been exposed to asbestos, to stop the development of this dreadful disease.
	I think that that deals with all the questions raised by Members on both sides of the House. I commend the regulations to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Social Security

Resolved,
	That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.— (Mr Harper.)

Business without Debate
	 — 
	delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Amendment) Measure

That the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Amendment) Measure (HC 914), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.—(Canon Sir Tony Baldry.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Ecclesiastical Property Measure

That the Ecclesiastical Property Measure (HC 915), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.—(Canon Sir Tony Baldry.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Church of England (Pensions) (Amendment) Measure

That the Church of England (Pensions) (Amendment) Measure (HC 916), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.—(Canon Sir Tony Baldry.)
	Question agreed to.

PEANUT ALLERGIES (ANNOUNCEMENTS ON UK FLIGHTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Ian Paisley Jnr: A few months ago, my constituent Helena Erwin and her young daughter Emily visited me at my constituency advice centre in Ballymena. Helena told me of her desire as a mother to ensure that her child was kept safe while travelling. Emily has a very severe peanut allergy that requires her to be kept away from contact with peanuts for fear of anaphylactic attack, which could be deadly.
	The family only became aware of this condition when they were on a family holiday and Emily was taken seriously ill. Subsequently, her consultant reported that she has
	“an instant and extreme allergic reaction.”
	Any parent of a child who requires special attention or care knows that that means constant care and attention daily, which has a broad impact. That is the case with this child, Emily. Her GP told her mother that in future, for all air travel, she will need to inform the carrier of her daughter’s condition. Her older sister has been taught how to recognise signs of anaphylaxis and what to do in an emergency, and her contemporaries—cousins, family and school friends—have had to be told what consumables Emily cannot be exposed to. The adult members of her family have each been trained to use an EpiPen and know how to administer her medication, which must accompany her at all times.
	The Erwins go abroad for work and recreation, and as a result of their travel experiences, Helena contacted me to raise awareness of the needs, particularly when travelling, of the many people who, like her precious daughter, suffer from anaphylaxis and could be helped by greater awareness and safety announcements, particularly onboard aeroplanes.
	It is important to put things in perspective. In 2013, there were 1,300 emergency admissions to A and E units in English hospitals following adverse food reactions and shock, and there have been six deaths in the past 13 months across the UK from anaphylaxis caused by food. Today, when we board a flight, we hear several standardised announcements, all of which we are very familiar with and are designed for our own safety: “Fasten your seatbelts”, “Put your folding table away”, “Stow your baggage”, “Keep window blinds up for take-off and landing”, and “Put down your seat’s arm rest”. There are also announcements about when and where smoking is permitted, and where and when a passenger can use a telephone or computer. We are well used to these announcements; those are just seven that I, as a regular commuter to Parliament, hear each week while flying.
	From time to time, but randomly—the crux of the issue—I hear allergy announcements. When I do, I accept that they are made for my safety and that of fellow travellers, and that they should be obeyed. However, it is the random nature of the peanut allergy announcements that has prompted this debate. The Minister and his Government can do something practical and positive to help. He can ensure that tonight we begin a process to
	achieve a consistent style of announcement on all flights, so that public safety is increased. I am not campaigning for prohibitions; I am championing the case for consistent safety announcements when required or requested by a traveller.
	Let me tell the House about the current inconsistent state of affairs. I have with me a report on 36 air carriers that fly to the United Kingdom and their policies on food allergies and announcements. Is there one consistent approach? No, there are 36 different approaches. To be fair, some airlines are doing their best, but a consistent, universal approach would actually be welcomed by the airlines as a beneficial starting point.
	I want to tell the House a little about what Emily experienced on a recent flight. I asked her mother to write out the details, and it is important that they be put on the record:
	“We incurred a 6 hour delay. An aircraft and crew were flown in from Paris to take us home. It was very obvious from when we stepped onto the flight that the crew were not happy at being there. We spoke to the crew member who knew nothing about us and didn’t even understand what a nut allergy was due to the language barrier. I do carry a translation card but this was in Spanish and not French.
	Eventually with much explaining from ourselves and some other passengers seated around us, the crew understood what we meant but refused to make an announcement. Their reason being simply they didn’t have to. My husband and I were by now beginning to get distressed as was our 6 year old daughter Lucy. We repeatedly asked and asked for the announcement to made, eventually we were told in a minute, other passengers were now starting to pass the information back and shouting at the crew on our behalf. The doors of the aircraft had been closed and my husband and I were now thinking about asking to get off the flight rather than take the chance. At this point the crew member agreed to make the announcement and when he made it was given a round of applause by all the passengers. As a family this was a very humiliating situation to be in and very upsetting for Lucy. About 2 hours into the flight the crew member actually apologised to us but we did not get an explanation why he wouldn’t announce it to begin with.
	On returning home I...called the CAA and got speaking to a Doctor from the medical department. He gave me a few pieces of advice. He felt any risk posed to my daughter would be from 3-4 rows in front or behind me and had I considered policing these rows myself to see what people are eating? All this while I am responsible for 2 small children and also adhering to the seatbelt signs. Another suggestion was just don't fly. Take a boat!”
	I think that tells its own story about the inconsistency, and shows that airlines require what I am suggesting. They probably need an impetus to drive them to come up with a policy that will work.
	Since I secured this Adjournment debate, I have been inundated with calls and e-mails from people across the United Kingdom. The story of Andy Hyams is well documented. He and his suffering daughter were alleged to have been bullied off a flight because no announcement was made. It is easy to understand why a parent would not want their child to stay on a flight in those circumstances; they could not move away if there was a problem. If the issue arises in a hotel or in public, people can at least leave, but they cannot get off an aeroplane when it is in flight.
	Another constituent, Francis, wrote to me to say that
	“unless you actually go through the stages of death by anaphylactic shock until you are left with your lifeless child in your arms it is very hard to imagine what happens.”
	Frank had that experience, and said that it was only when people saw it happening that they realised the huge need address this issue.
	Another lady, Danielle Toner, wrote to me to say of airlines that
	“yes some will make an announcement, others will not. When you have a child in a confined space with a life threatening condition I feel it is a must that airlines should be accountable for all passengers on their flights.”
	I think she makes a very good point on behalf of her little six-year-old boy, who suffers from this condition.
	These allergic reactions affect one in 50 children in the United Kingdom, and I think the Minister knows that something needs to be done about this now. Putting in place a requirement that a consistent announcement, agreed with the Civil Aviation Authority, be made on a passenger’s request should not be beyond the scope of this House, or the care of this Government.
	I do not believe that new legislation is necessary, but if it is, there is an opportunity to make the Consumer Rights Bill, currently in the other place, the legislative vehicle to get this job done. I appeal to the Minister to put Emily’s law in place. Let us do something to make the airlines announce consistent messages on peanut and other food allergies, so that people can travel in safety and feel that they are not being hindered in any way or having their rights taken away from them. I appeal to the Minister to do something about this.

Robert Goodwill: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on securing this debate about announcements relating to peanut allergies on flights entering and leaving the UK. I genuinely thank him for raising this topic, which is an important one. The responses he has had from his constituents and others show that many people around the country have been affected and have real concerns about their own or their families’ health.
	The Government take the health and safety of air passengers and crew extremely seriously. The UK is recognised throughout the global aviation community for its high standards and excellent record of safety in commercial aviation. Severe allergic reactions, such as those that may be associated with peanut allergy, can be frightening for those who experience them at any time, and particularly for parents and carers of babies and infants. Within the confines of an aircraft cabin, there are few options for relief. The distress can be particularly acute.
	We have the greatest sympathy for those who suffer—or who witness the suffering of their loved ones—as a result of such extreme reactions, wherever they occur, but we must have regard to evidence relating to the incidence and cause of such reactions. There is little published scientific evidence concerning the risks of exposure during travel and the efficacy of any mitigating measures. The risk of nut or peanut allergy, including anaphylaxis, as a result of consumption by mouth is well documented, but evidence of allergic reactions resulting from the inhaling of the allergen is mainly confined to anecdotal case reports. However, I know
	that airlines try to reduce the risk of serious medical incidents, including allergic reactions, while people are on board their aircraft. It is already standard practice for carriers to request passengers to notify them before travelling if they have any medical conditions, including allergies, so that they can take appropriate action, such as ensuring that wheelchairs and other assistance are available.
	Most airlines carry information on their websites which outlines their policy in relation to passengers with allergies. Some have taken additional measures, such as removing peanuts from their in-flight snacks—that has been done by British Airways, among others—or offering to broadcast requests to other passengers not to consume nuts that they have brought on board with them. EasyJet and Norwegian already deploy that strategy. However, few airlines are able to offer or guarantee peanut or nut-free meals. TheDaily Mail website today draws attention to my hon. Friend’s constituents the Levitan family, and the problems that they experienced. There is a very fetching picture of the hon. Gentleman and me—and, on the same page, Madonna, who was attending the Grammys.
	The International Air Transport Association, a trade body for airlines, has also published detailed information for allergen-sensitive passengers. It includes guidance on the applicable regulations, such as the requirements for aircraft to carry first aid and emergency medical kits, and for cabin crew to be trained in first aid. However, the guidance acknowledges that the detailed regulations are the responsibility of each country, and that there may be variations in the extent of the medical equipment that is carried or the training of cabin crew. Its advice to passengers includes recommendations that they contact a physician before travelling to discuss any related risks, contact the airline once the booking has been made, ensure that prescribed medication is carried in hand baggage, and arrive early at the airport to re-confirm any specific requirements that they have made. Comprehensive advice is also available on the Anaphylaxis Campaign and Allergy UK websites. The Government commend those organisations for their work, which supports the range of other practical help and advice that is available.
	We recognise—and we have heard again tonight—that passengers sometimes face inconsistent responses from airlines when they notify them of their history of allergy, and we understand that that can lead to pressure to require all airlines to meet certain minimum standards of support. However, there is a very limited amount of evidence relating to the risk, and the efficacy of any specific mitigation measures. The Government would need to be certain that the benefits of introducing any new regulation, such as a requirement for airlines to make a pre-flight announcement, was proportionate, and would have a significant impact in terms of risk reduction.
	I accept that air travel is qualitatively different from other modes of transport, in that there is less opportunity to seek respite from environmental factors by moving. However, aviation competes with other modes on some routes. The measures proposed by the hon. Gentleman would place a duty on one mode of transport—aviation—but not on others, such as ferries and international rail, which compete with it. We should also have regard to
	the extent to which any actions requested in an on-board announcement might unreasonably limit the freedom of other passengers. For example, a family might have brought their own food—such as peanut butter sandwiches —on to an aircraft, and might have no alternative food to give their children during the flight.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I am, of course, very aware of the issue of freedom. I do not think that anyone is campaigning for a prohibition, which is an important point. However, I have not once met a family who, having been told by others, “One of our children suffers from peanut allergies—please do not eat those peanuts,” would wilfully want to eat peanuts in front of them, I think that most people would comply with such a request if they knew that the health of someone who was exposed to peanuts would be at risk.

Robert Goodwill: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, the way ventilation works on aircraft may mean that a person who is seated well to the back of a plane and well away from the person with the allergy problem will not pose a risk. There is also interesting information about the effect on people when they smell peanuts. Their reaction may not be entirely an allergic reaction; if a person has had a bad experience before, they would certainly be feeling a degree of stress, which could be a risk to them. We should also not forget situations when peanuts have been served on a previous flight or people have had peanuts on a previous flight. Parents might sometimes want to check the seat so a toddler cannot find peanuts in between the upholstery and then consume it, thereby causing a problem.
	We should not impose restrictions on other passengers without evidence that this would be necessary and effective. We should also consider that a carrier is unlikely to be able to guarantee an environment totally free of the trigger substance. For example, an aircraft may have had only superficial “turnaround” cleaning following a previous flight that day, possibly operated by a different airline, and a passenger on the previous flight might have consumed a product containing the allergen as other passengers may bring their own food with them which can contain the allergen.
	Furthermore, the effect of such an announcement may be limited. I am slightly ashamed of this, but I am sure that I am not the only airline passenger not to devote my entire attention to each part of the announcements made every time I fly. In some cases language difficulties may also mean that some passengers do not understand the announcements.
	Another issue is that if an announcement was to be made in relation to peanuts without clear evidence that the action sought reduced a real risk, there could be pressure to make announcements on other topics, for example other foodstuffs such as cooked fish and chickpeas, which have been linked to severe allergic reactions, or dog hairs which may be present on the clothing of passengers, or indeed an assistance-dog on the flight. The list of substances potentially causing an allergic reaction is long and includes strawberries, eggs, soya, milk and sesame seeds. Also, photosensitive epileptic reactions could be linked to some movies or video
	games that could be played by a passenger on a device during a flight in the vicinity of a person subject to such attacks.
	Where action is to be required by regulation there needs to be an evidence base that it is necessary. I have today asked officials to write to the British Air Transport Association, which represents 80% of UK carriers, asking what its current policy is: whether the declaration should be made as a ticket is booked, which is the current situation; whether carriers should ban nuts from the foods they provide on their flights; and what type of announcement they should make and the practicality of that on some aircraft where the announcements are made via a drop-down video screen rather than by cabin crew over a microphone. I have asked my officials to try and get that information from BATA as a direct result of this debate.
	Finally, it is only practical for any requirement to make such an announcement, if introduced under UK domestic legislation, to apply to UK airlines. As a result significant numbers of passengers flying in and out of the UK on foreign-owner carriers would not be covered by such a provision.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the fact that the Minister has been prompt in deciding to call for the gathering of that information. Will he go a bit further and give me a commitment that when he has that information he will turn that research into some serious policy that will allow for a change, if the evidence is there—I accept that the evidence must always be there to make a decision?

Robert Goodwill: I hope we might not have to introduce legislation. I get the impression that, given the sensitivity surrounding this subject and the publicity it has received as a result of the hon. Gentleman’s actions, many airlines in this country, and indeed around the world, are looking at this and looking at what standardised announcement might be made. I therefore hope we can make progress without the need for legislation, but we will keep all options open, of course. Several of the cases that have received recent media attention and been the subject of correspondence with the Department for Transport have concerned foreign-owned airlines.
	I mentioned earlier that the Government take passenger health and safety very seriously. We are aware of the concerns expressed in Parliament on this matter. When it was discussed in another place at the end of last year, I had the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord Mendelsohn and the noble Baroness Kennedy of Cradley on 18 November to discuss and, I hope, allay some of their concerns.
	In order to inform this debate, the Department for Transport and the aviation health unit of the Civil Aviation Authority have committed to work with medical specialists in allergies to develop evidence-based guidance for airlines. As a first step, it is intended to commission a review of the scientific literature to evaluate the evidence for a link between environmental exposure to aerosolised food particles and serious allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, in subjects who have been diagnosed with a food allergy.
	The objective of the scientific review will be to identify what, if any, steps could be recommended on the basis of the existing evidence and to identify the need for any
	further research. In that way, the industry could not reasonably object that the regulation was arbitrary or unwarranted. The regulation would have clear benefits in terms of reducing risk, and it would be easier to secure consensus on any international action necessary to offer protection to those at risk. Once again, I thank
	the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for providing the opportunity to bring this issue to the attention of the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.